Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
THE ROLE OF PARTICIPATORY COMMUNICATION IN WATER,
SANITATION AND HYGIENE (WASH):
A Case Study of Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) Approach in
Kaptembwo and Kwa Rhoda Settlements in Nakuru.
BY
MUCHIRE, W. PAUL
REG NO: K50/71724/2008
A Research Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the
Award of degree of Masters of Arts in Communication Studies at the School of
Journalism and Mass Communication of the University of Nairobi
November, 2014
i
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this research project is my original work and has not been submitted for
examination purposes to any other institution, any award or any other qualification.
Signature…………………………………. Date………………………
MUCHIRE, W. PAUL
Reg. K50/71724/2008
This research project has been submitted for examination with my approval as University of
Nairobi Supervisor.
Signature…………………………………. Date………………………
I.J. Ndolo
Supervisor
ii
DEDICATION
This research is dedicated to my wife Lydia Nyambura, my daughter Gertrude Kirigo and my
son Pascal Muchire for their support and inspiration throughout my studies over the years. May
God bless you.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project report has been a result of the tremendous support accorded to me by various
people. I would like to thank University of Nairobi for giving me the opportunity to pursue this
course and providing the resources that I needed.
I would like to appreciate my supervisor I.J. Ndolo of University of Nairobi for his contribution
and support to this project report. His advice and patience as he took me through the
development of the proposal and this report is much appreciated. I also appreciate the rich
information and resources that he shared with me.
I would like to thank the CLTS project team at Umande Trust, Practical Action and Public
Health Department Nakuru, for the time and information they shared with me. I would also like
to thank my research team, the people of Kaptembwo and Kwa Rhonda for their willingness to
give information and to all who directly or indirectly contributed to the success of this project.
I express my sincere gratitude to my mother Veronica Kirigo, brothers and sisters for their
support both moral and financial. You all provided me with the energy to move on. I also
appreciate all my friends who have completed their studies; your hard work gave me zeal to
work hard too.
Finally I thank God for the opportunity to have gone through the course and particularly through
this study. It has made me appreciate the simple things of life that many take for granted. Thank
you for good health and for providing the resources that I needed.
iv
TABLE OF ABBBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation Full Name
CLTS Community Led Total Sanitation
CCU CLTS Coordinating Unit
CHEW Community Health Extension Worker
CHW Community Health Worker
GOK Government of Kenya
IEC Information Communication Education
KNBS Kenya National Bureau of Statistics
MDG Millennium Development Goal
MOPS Ministry of Public Health and Sanitation
NAWASCO Nakuru Water and Sewerage Company
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
OD Open Defecation
ODF Open Defecation Free
PHAST Participatory Health and Hygiene Transformation
UNICEF United Nations Children Fund
WASH Waster, Sanitation and Hygiene
WASREB Water Services Regulatory Board
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4.1 Distribution of repondents by age ............................................................................... 31
Figure 4.2 Education Levels ......................................................................................................... 49
Figure 4.3 Household sizes ........................................................................................................... 31
Figure 4.4 Sanitation condition ..................................................................................................... 49
Figure 4.5 Frequency of income ................................................................................................... 31
Figure 4.6 Income levels ............................................................................................................... 49
Figure 4.7 Sanitation Condition .................................................................................................... 31
Figure 4.8 Stakeholders participation in CLTS project meetings ................................................. 49
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1 CLTS Knowledge ......................................................................................................... 31
Table 4.2 Participation in project phases ...................................................................................... 49
Table 4.3 Communication tools .................................................................................................... 31
Table 4.4 Respondents Perception on CLTS ................................................................................ 49
Table 4.5 Ratings on communication statements ......................................................................... 31
vii
ABSTRACT
Access to quality sanitation is precondition for good health and for success in the fight against
poverty and attainment of millennium development goals (MDG) on health. This study was
based in Kaptembwo and Kwa Rhonda, two low income settlements in Nakuru Municipality.
The areas, though somehow planned are faced with inadequate water and sanitation services,
amidst the increasing population pressure. This has been the situation, albeit the numerous
initiatives that have been implemented in the areas.
This study sought to investigate the role of participatory communication within the context of a
water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) project that adopts the use of participatory approaches.
The study examined the Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) project being implemented in
the area since the year 2013. The study also sought to establish the level of expertise project in
terms of participatory communication amongst the staff implementing the CLTS, a major
determinant of project’s successful implementation.
This study collected primary data from the study area using the survey method. Being a
descriptive study, it used both qualitative and quantitative approaches, hence generating largely
qualitative and quantitative data. A total of eighty questionnaires were used to get data from the
beneficiary community. An additional eight self-administered questionnaires were used among
project staff and three key informant interviews targeting CLTs two trainers and a senior public
health official in Nakuru were conducted.
From the study findings, over fifty percent (50%) of the respondents indicated that the sanitation
condition in the area is good, an indication of happiness and satisfaction for a population whose
majority has lived in the area for over ten years. A big percentage has associate this to the CLTS
viii
initiative in the area, where ninety percent (90%) indicated that they have knowledge of the
project, and eighty eight percent (88%) have attended various sessions on CLTS. The study
further shows that there is high usage of participatory communication tools in the project, and
this has enhanced participation by the residents where 70% indicate that they have made
contributions that they feel have been used in decision making.
Among the key successes of the project is in terms of hand washing where 79% of the
respondents agreed to have put up some form of hand washing facility in their household as a
result of the project activities, which they have given a 93% success rate.
The study further found that there is there is limited expertise on participatory communication
and its application in the CLTS project, which is designed to use participatory approaches. This
could be related to the fact that participatory communication has not been institutionalized in the
project, hence no deliberate efforts are in place to use it for the success of the project.
This study concludes that for the CLTS to achieve its objective effectively there is need for
deliberate institutionalization of participatory communication in terms of budgetary allocation
and staffing by the implementing agencies, and also by government in future CLTS initiatives.
The implementing agencies also need to enhance stakeholders participation in the
implementation phase of the project so that they can sustain the momentum in the post
implementation phase of the project, where major effects of the CLTS project would be realized.
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ............................................................................................................................. i DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................ ii TABLE OF ABBBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................. iv LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ v LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... vi ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. vii CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Problem Statement .................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Research Objectives .................................................................................................................. 6
1.3.1 The specific objectives ....................................................................................................... 6 1.4 Research Hypotheses ................................................................................................................ 6 1.5 Assumptions .............................................................................................................................. 6 1.6 Significance of the Study .......................................................................................................... 7 1.7 Scope and limitations of the study ............................................................................................ 8 1.8 Justification of the study ........................................................................................................... 8 1.9 Definition of Terms................................................................................................................... 9 CHAPTER TWO ........................................................................................................................ 10 2.0 Literature review ..................................................................................................................... 10 2.1 Participatory Communication ................................................................................................. 10 2.2 The Origin of Participatory Communication .......................................................................... 12 2.3 Theoretical orientation ............................................................................................................ 13
2.3.1 Participatory Approach .................................................................................................... 14 2.4 Participatory Strategies ........................................................................................................... 15
2.4.1 Participatory communication and research ...................................................................... 15 2.4.2 Participatory Communication and Planning .................................................................... 16 2.4.3 Participatory message development ................................................................................. 18
2.5 The Participatory Communication; an African Perspective ................................................... 19 2.6 Challenges facing participatory communication in development ........................................... 21
2.6.1 Strategic Approach ........................................................................................................... 21 2.6.2 Investing in communication departments ........................................................................ 22 2.6.3 Institutionalization of participation .................................................................................. 23
2.7 WASH Outlook in Kenya ....................................................................................................... 23 2.8 WASH in Nakuru’s Kaptembwo and Kwa Rhonda settlements ............................................ 24 2.9 The approach; Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) ...................................................... 25 2.10 CLTS in Kenya ..................................................................................................................... 26
x
2.11 CLTS in Nakuru .................................................................................................................... 27 2.12 Role of Participatory Communication in WASH, a case of CLTS Approach ...................... 27 2.13 Positioning participatory communication in CLTS in Nakuru ............................................. 29
2.13.1 Recognition of problem ................................................................................................. 29 2.13.2 Identification and involvement of leaders and stakeholders .......................................... 29 2.13.3 Clarification of perceptions ............................................................................................ 30 2.13.4 Expression of Individual and Shared Needs .................................................................. 31 2.13.5 Vision of the Future; Area Mapping .............................................................................. 32 2.13.6 Assessment of Current Status ........................................................................................ 32 2.13.7 Setting objectives ........................................................................................................... 32 2.13.8 Action ............................................................................................................................. 33
2.14 Extension and participatory communication in Nakuru ....................................................... 34 2.15 The limits of participatory communication ........................................................................... 35
2.15.1 Conflict .......................................................................................................................... 36 2.15.2 Up-scaling ...................................................................................................................... 36 2.15.3 Long-term Commitment ................................................................................................ 37 2.15.4 Manipulation .................................................................................................................. 37
2.16 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 38 CHAPTER THREE .................................................................................................................... 39 3.0 Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 39 3.1 Study area................................................................................................................................ 39 3.2 Type of data and collection procedure .................................................................................... 39 3.3 Sample design and sampling procedures ................................................................................ 40 3.4 Research tools ......................................................................................................................... 41
3.4.1 The questionnaire ............................................................................................................. 41 3.4.2 Interview schedules .......................................................................................................... 41
3.5 Processing and analysing data ................................................................................................ 42 3.5.1 Quantitative data ......................................................................................................... 42 3.5.2 Qualitative data ................................................................................................................ 42
CHAPTER FOUR ....................................................................................................................... 44 4.0 Data analysis and presentation ................................................................................................ 44 4.1 Demographic Data .................................................................................................................. 44 4.2 CLTS Knowledge ................................................................................................................... 49 4.3 CLTS Awareness .................................................................................................................... 50 4.4 Participation. ........................................................................................................................... 52 4.5 Sector Identification ................................................................................................................ 54 4.6 Communication tools .............................................................................................................. 55 4.7 Participatory communication in the project ............................................................................ 56 4.8 Project team communication knowledge. ............................................................................... 59 4.9 Role of participation in CLTS................................................................................................. 60
xi
4.10 Training ................................................................................................................................. 61 4.11 Strengths / Limitations of communication in the project...................................................... 62 4.13 Participatory communication and CLTS .............................................................................. 64 4.14 Effectiveness of communication in CLTS ............................................................................ 66 4.15 Institutionalization of communication .................................................................................. 66 CHAPTER FIVE ........................................................................................................................ 68 5.0 Summary of findings, discussion, conclusion and recommendations .................................... 68 5.1 Summary of research findings ................................................................................................ 68
5.1.1 Communication competence and training ....................................................................... 68 5.1.2 Institutionalization of communication ............................................................................. 68 5.1.3 Communication tools ....................................................................................................... 69 5.1.4 Message development and comprehension ...................................................................... 70 5.1.5 Stakeholders’ participation .............................................................................................. 70
5.2 Discussion of the research findings ........................................................................................ 71 5.3 Conclusion. ............................................................................................................................. 72 5.4 Recommendations. .................................................................................................................. 73 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 76 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 82
Appendix I: Project Team Questionnaire ................................................................................. 82 Appendix II: Key informants: Project Beneficiaries Questionnaire ......................................... 88 Appendix III: Key Informant: Interview Schedule ................................................................... 94
1
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 Introduction
Sanitation remains one of the biggest development challenges in developing countries.
Improving water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) is key to achieving the health-related
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) of reducing child mortality and combating disease. To
achieve this, many governments and non-governmental organizations have put up immeasurable
resources and energies in their attempt to achieve these MDGs. Key to these efforts has been
incorporation of effective communication programmes that would yield the much needed
results, hence attainment of the MDGs.
In recent years, WASH champions have adopted many community based approaches to address
WASH challenges. One of the popular approaches in use is the Community led Total Sanitation
(CLTS). This approach has drawn significant attention, and results in over 50 countries
worldwide (Kamar, K. 2010). Core to this approach is a shift away of the focus of supporting
toilet construction for individual households, to an approach that seeks to create open defecation
free zones through an emphasis on the behavior change of the whole community. This is
achieved by triggering the community to come into terms with the effects of poor WASH
practices. It aims to eliminate open defecation by creation of awareness, where assorted means
of communication are employed.
The CLTS approach effectively creates empowered communities who are motivated to take
collective action, with the state and other non-state actors playing a facilitating role. The success
of a CLTS project is highly pegged on how well ideas are organized and how well in an equal
measure the ideas are communicated to the consumers. The absorption of the ideas, and the
subsequent feedback thus are catalysts to realization of expected results and action in a CLTS
2
project. A properly designed CLTS project stimulates consultations amongst the beneficiaries,
and other stakeholders. This makes them all participants and communication between them is
dialogic. All have an opportunity to freely communicate and make important contribution to the
success of the project (UNICEF, 2013).
1.1 Background
At the beginning of the 21st Century, nearly 2.6 billion people in the world (2 out of every 5)
lack adequate sanitation and 1 billion do not have access to drinking water, conditions
particularly prevalent in developing countries. This position is being taken as a priority in
development circles, and especially as it relates to health and high infant mortality rates
(2million) resulting from lack of clean water and sanitation services (UNICEF, 2011). The
situation has led to a rethink of approaches in addressing the challenge, and the role of the
beneficiary communities has taken a centre stage in the discussions on development at various
levels.
The 2013 Human Development Report, (UNDP 2013) states that unless people can participate
meaningfully in the events and processes that shape their lives, national human development
paths will be neither desirable nor sustainable. People should be able to influence policymaking
and results.
According to Mefalopulos, P. (2004), the concept of development has changed gradually in the
last fifty years from a view associated with “modernization” processes to a hybrid perspective
which allows for the inclusion of approaches to decentralized territorial development and the
outcome of strategic alliances between public and private actors. This has brought forth the
understanding of development as a multidimensional process which comprises the change of
social structures, attitudes, institutions, the reduction of inequalities, and the eradication of
poverty.
3
An expanded people’s capacity and skills is therefore necessary so as to gain access and control
factors that affect their basic needs, hence empowering them. In such a scenario, people must
become the protagonists of their own development, otherwise not much would be achieved from
any amount of investment that would improve their living in a sustainable way.
Development in water and sanitation embraces this perspective. Most of the projects today put
into place in one way or the other participatory means of engaging the community. This has
seen participation becoming a key component in WASH initiatives by government, NGOs and
the private sector.
Gorre-Dale, et al (1994) indicate that development agencies have accepted that most water and
sanitation-related problems must be tackled by the people in the villages and urban slums, who
must be properly empowered and equipped to take actions themselves. This is what CLTS seeks
to achieve by adopting participatory approaches.
In this context, effective communication becomes critical to the success of the initiatives being
put in place. People must be involved in the communication processes that take place, because it
is about their well-being. According to (Liney, 2012), Hygiene education should not be
authoritarian, with one way communication. It should be people-centred with, at least, two-way,
or at best, multi-way communication. This is participatory communication, and Liney’s
argument forms the basis of the theoretical framework for this study.
This is supported by Bessette, G. (2004), in his definition of participatory development
communication as a planned activity, based on participatory processes, media and interpersonal
communication and which facilitates a dialogue among different stakeholders, around a
common development problem or goal.
According to Mefalopulos, P. (2004), participatory communication means moving from a focus
of informing and persuading people to change their behavior or attitudes, to a focus on
4
facilitating exchanges between different stakeholders to address a common problem. This is a
major element in a CLTS approach.
This study therefore seeks to explore the role and effectiveness of participatory communication
in CLTS within Nakuru’s Kaptembwo and Kwa Rhonda low income settlements, in which
residents are faced with a myriad of poverty related challenges, including congestion, poor
housing, and poor water, sanitation and hygiene services, this is despite the numerous efforts
being put in place by a host of development players in the sector.
1.2 Problem Statement
Like many other countries, Kenya has continually continued to suffer chronic WASH
challenges, this is despite the immeasurable resources that have been invested in this area, the
biggest being a dedication of a full ministry between 2007 and 2013. Many questions therefore
come to mind as to why this is the case, despite the presence of highly skilled personnel
spearheading the campaigns on improved WASH services. Practitioners in the sector have as a
result looked at the matter in depth with an aim of coming up with an innovative approach that
would fill the gap between the inputs, in terms of capital and labour investment, and the output
in terms of behavior change and uptake of proper knowledge, attitudes and practices in WASH,
and at least improve WASH conditions.
However, it is evident that, though a lot of this is being done, there is not as much effort to use
communication as a key component in WASH. Some organizations have little or no
consideration for communication (funding and training), and this has been a major detriment to
the success of such projects. It is therefore evident that any project, and in this particular case, a
WASH project incorporating the CLTS approach may fail to secure the anticipated outputs if
communication is not incorporated effectively.
5
Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) is a very effective and innovative social
communication process, which creates the right social pressure to ban open defecation totally,
to adopt hygienic behaviour and to stimulate the demand for latrines simultaneously (Kar, K.
2010). It seeks triggering collective behavior change by facilitating communities to take
collective action to adopt safe and hygienic sanitation behavior. It also seeks to ensure that all
households have access to safe sanitation facilities. The emphasis is tapping on the people’s
potentials, with no subsidy.
CLTS applies participatory approaches where information and knowledge is shared among all
stakeholders in a WASH process to stimulate dialogue in order to ensure mutual understanding
and consensus leading to action. This is in line with Mefalopulos (2004) position on
development communication as a process whose aim is to facilitate people’s participation at all
levels of the development. The CLTS approach empowers the residents to actively contribute in
the decision making process for the WASH initiatives. The outcomes of the CLTS initiative,
which includes toilet construction, reduction or stoppage of open defection and proper hand
washing practices are sustainable because people feel that they have contributed in decision
making hence creating a sense of ownership.
It is evident that to address the WASH challenges facing the community in the low income
areas, CLTS has been adopted as one of the promising approaches. With its participatory nature
of addressing issues, communication in it also adopts the participatory approach. This study
therefore points out at the communication gap that is a major detriment to achievement of
WASH project outcomes that could be addressed by applying participatory communication
approach with a special focus on CLTS project in Nakuru.
6
1.3 Research Objectives
This study investigated how participatory communication has been conceived and applied in a
CLTS project specifically designed to promote participatory approaches in addressing WASH
challenges in Nakuru’s Kwa Rhonda and Kaptembwo low income areas.
1.3.1 The specific objectives
i. To investigate the level of project implementation where the community is involved in a
participatory manner.
ii. To establish the role of media in CLTS
iii. To investigate stakeholder involvement in CLTS
iv. To examine Umande Trust, Practical Action and Ministry of Health CLTS project staff
capacity in participatory communication.
1.4 Research Hypotheses
This study is based on the following null hypotheses
1. Ho: Participatory communication is not a major determinant of success in a WASH
project.
2. Ho: Poor or no training of staff on communication has no impact on the delivery of
a successful CLTS project.
3. Ho: Message development does not determine the success of CLTS projects.
4. Ho: Project beneficiaries must not participate in the whole project cycle where
there are experts.
1.5 Assumptions
This study makes the following assumptions:
i. That the organizations implementing this project have a competent team in participatory
approaches.
7
ii. That if WASH development agents get proper training on participatory communication,
they would be in a position to use the available communication tools to achieve Open
Defecation Free areas with much ease.
iii. There will be willingness on the side of stakeholders to respond to the study questions
objectively.
1.6 Significance of the Study
The provision of sanitation services in low-income urban areas is one of the greatest challenges in
development. Population growth in developing countries currently outpaces sanitation growth,
especially in urban areas (WHO/UNICEF, 2010). Consequently, in urban areas where poor people
reside, and where ‘formal’ basic services are not available, residents experience serious risks such
as dirty and contaminated environment which provide good breeding environment for diseases
and parasites. The informal settlements are typically overcrowded, polluted and lack basic
services such as water and sanitation. A major contribution to urban development is ensuring that
poor people and the local public and private sector actively participate in the improvement of
WASH conditions and services.
Being that in CLTS, the beneficiaries are not provided with hardware or any form of subsidy in
the implementation process, information becomes a key component for its success. As a result,
for the community to act there must be very properly organized communication models that
would ensure active participation by all in the management of available information.
To date, there is limited study on participatory communication in a CLTS approach. This study
therefore seeks to contribute to an area that is becoming increasingly tenable in addressing
WASH challenges in Kenya and beyond, and especially amongst the poor residents of the
informal settlements and low income areas.
The study will also provide a resource base for organizations that plan, or are still implementing
8
a CLTS project, for it will help in positioning communication in the project, as a core
determinant of success. It will help appreciate the role of a communication department in
WASH, and particularly in a CLTS approach, hence inclusion in planning and budgeting
process.
1.7 Scope and limitations of the study
This study is based on the ongoing CLTS project in Nakuru’s Kaptembwo and Rhonda
settlements. Nakuru Municipality, according to 2009 census, had a total population of 473,200
(GoK, 2010). Approximately 60% of this population live in the low income settlements, the two
largest of which are Rhonda and Kaptembwo with a combined population of approximately
190,000. This study targeted a cross section of the stakeholders concerned in WASH within
Nakuru Municipality, critically analyzing their role in the project, and how they facilitate or
hinder participatory communication, hence affecting the success of the project.
However, the study was limited to the level of implementation and realized results from the
participatory approach. Secondly, the objectivity of the respondents in some instances was a
major limitation, even though a good introduction of the purpose of the study was done. Lastly,
time and resources was a major limitation, as this has a bearing in the scope of the study.
Limiting it to only one area (Nakuru urban) where such an initiative is being carried out, and
with no room for comparative analysis with a similar intervention in rural areas, for example in
Nambale, in Western Kenya, an area that has already been declared as ODF and also in
Naivasha where a similar intervention is going .
1.8 Justification of the study
With limited available resources for WASH, and high un-exploited potential among the
residents, development practitioners have opted to introduce CLTS, a participatory approach
that is all-inclusive, involving all stakeholders according to institutional responsibility and area
9
of expertise. This study therefore makes an important contribution towards the use of
participatory approaches towards the realization of the right to access to reasonable standards of
sanitation (The Constitution of Kenya 2010 Sec. 43: d).
1.9 Definition of Terms
Community: People living in a delimited defined area and sharing common
physical resources (land, water and infrastructure).
Edutainment: Use of entertainment to educate project beneficiaries
Non state actors: Non-governmental agencies
On spot open defecation: defecation on the floor of a toilet
OD: Open Defecation, where people defecate in open spaces
ODF: Open Defecation Free, where all faecal matter is contained
Sanitation Ladder A tool used to show improvement of sanitation conditions,
from open defecation, use of pit latrines up to the use of sewer.
State actors: Government agencies
Total sanitation: Zero open defecation and 100 per cent of excreta hygienic
Containment
10
CHAPTER TWO
2.0 Literature review
This chapter reviews major contributions in the area of participatory communication and CLTS.
The chapter attempts to position participatory communication in CLTS which is a participatory
approach to development in Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) sector, especially in the
developing world. Though little literature on the role of participatory communication in CLTS
is available, this study will attempt to contextualize CLTS initiative in Nakuru, with a critical
look at how they relate and interact in WASH. The chapter also traces the origin of both
participatory communication and CLTS approaches.
2.1 Participatory Communication
To be able to understand participatory communication, there is need to look at the wider area of
development communication, in which participatory communication is a model.
Ngugi, M. (1996:79) defines development communication as “the systematic utilization of
appropriate communication channels and techniques to increase peoples participation in
development and to inform and train rural (or urban) populations, mainly at the grassroots
levels.” This could be achieved through mass communication or interpersonal channels.
Development communication aims at mobilizing and gaining support in attaining development
goals, with attitudes, skills and behavior change which would yield into action.
Drawing from this broad area of communication, Bessette, G. (2004) defines participatory
communication as a planned activity, based on participatory processes on one hand and on the
other hand on media and interpersonal communication. These facilitate dialogue among
different stakeholders, around a common development problem or goal, with the objective of
developing and implementing a set of activities to contribute to its solution, or its realization.
11
From Bessette’s (2004) definition, it can be posited that participatory communication is not just
about informing and persuading people to change their behavior or attitudes, it is also about
facilitating dialogue between different stakeholders around a common problem.
Mefalopulos, P. (2009) supports this position in his argument that participatory communication
is not just the exchange of information and experiences but also the exploration and generation
of new knowledge aimed at addressing situations, new and upcoming.
Participatory communication emphasizes on reciprocal collaboration throughout all levels of
participation. It underscores listening to what others say; respecting their attitudes and having
mutual trust (Yoon, C.S. 1996).
In participatory communication, there is exchange of roles between sender and receiver.
McQuil, S. (1983:97) writes that, “Another communication favours multiplicity, smallness of
scale, locality, de-institutionalization, and interchange of sender receiver roles (and)
horizontality of communication links at all levels.” McQuil’s argument presents the ground for
argument that participatory communication is model that encompasses various theoretical
approaches. Emphasis is on meaning sought and ascribed instead of transmission of
information. (Servaes, J. 1995).
Further, information availed in participatory communication is on what is needed, it is about the
development agents responding to the needs of the society rather than directing them on pre-
conceived solutions to their problems. Communication flows vertically and horizontally,
internally and externally, formally and informally, linking all the stakeholders. Communication
therefore becomes the heart of performance.
12
2.2 The Origin of Participatory Communication
According to Yoon, C.S. (1996), the participatory communication approach was conceived
more than three decades ago and has been used by many non-governmental organizations
(NGO) and government agencies in their development agenda. The approach took root in the
early 1970s with the work of Paulo Freire, the Brazilian who is considered to be the first to use
participatory communication in his attempt to empower landless peasants in Brazil.
Ever since, there has been a lot of questioning of the then popular top-down approach in line
with Laswell communication theory (1948); ‘Who says what, in which channel to whom and
with what effect’ (Tan, S. 1981), by those who advocated for participation on matters that
borders them.
Changes in approach continued coming up leading to the Diffusion Theory (Tan, S. 1981).
There was belief by many that in the diffusion model, adoption of modern technology would
trigger development. Dependence on mass communication, and especially the radio was
common. However, diffusion of innovations gave no room for indigenous knowledge, and
especially to the developing countries and poor rural areas (Yoon, C.S.1996).
Freire’s work amongst the landless in Brazil presented a paradigm shift from the old monologic,
top-down approaches, to a dialogic horizontal approach. In the old paradigm, the communicator
or development agent applies his or her knowledge and collaborates with the community to
come up with solutions. Unlike in the monologic approach where there exist pre-determined
positions, in dialogic approach, the development practitioner facilitates a dialogue between the
stakeholders to reach to a resolution of a problem or the realization of a common goal (Bassette,
G. 2004).
Progression in approaches in communication, and especially during the modernization era (17th
-19th century), saw a shift from the hand of professionals and experts only to a more realistic
13
participatory nature of communication. This shift led to mass media getting reduced prominence
as they were seen as major contributors to the sidelining of some communities, and especially
the poor communities living in the rural areas, and in the developing countries. As a result,
there was increased advocacy for community participation on matters that touch on them.
(Nwanko, R. N. (1996). Further, Yoon, C.S. (1996), states that community participation and
participatory approaches gave birth to participatory communication. It thus led to prominence
being given to the initiator of communication and the way decisions were made more than the
information being conveyed.
Yoon, C.S. (ibid) points out that this approach had a lot of emphasis on interpersonal and
traditional communication, diminishing the role of national large scale communication
activities. What resulted was small scale localized participatory communication programmes.
However, innovations in the mass media, which were largely ignored in participatory
communication later paved way for their inclusion, with the radio making inroads, especially
with the establishment of the community radio within the neighbourhood. This provided space
for participatory communication to embrace varied theoretical approaches.
2.3 Theoretical orientation
Early scholars have had arguments on the most appropriate theoretical framework that would
define participatory communication. This according Tufte, T. and Mefalopulos, P. (2009) has
not been easy even with the most avid proponents of participatory communication.
Mefalopulos, P. (2003) writes that participatory communication approach has dominated the
field of development communication since the 1970s, when Paulo Freire, a Brazilian educator,
proposed the replacement of the pedagogical system with a more liberating type of
communication that would contain more dialogue, which would be more beneficiary-centred
and more conscious of social structure. This was a diversion from the earlier models that
14
emphasized that in modern communication, the mass media was the precursor of modern
development. This study, based on practical situations and study limitations is based on
participatory model of communication, which plays a major role in WASH in particular
reference to CLTS. It appreciates that participatory communication is a key factor in
development that is applied in order to realize collective action.
It underscores the notion that participatory communication model places greater emphasis on
two way interpersonal (Tufte, T. and Mefalopulos, P. 2009). The study therefore limits itself to
the participatory model of communication.
2.3.1 Participatory Approach
Participatory communication is a term that denotes the theory and practices of communication
used to involve people in the decision-making of the development process. (Mefalopulos, P.
2003). Muturi, N. and Mwangi, S. (2009) in their contribution on participatory theory state that
the approach calls for a two-way interactive process in which all participants both encode and
decode information with dialogue being a key tenet. The concept of dialogue is associated with
Freire (1970) who argued that citizens have the capacity to map and understand their own
problems and possible solutions through a dialogic process that could help them make meaning
of their circumstances and the available choices. This model seeks to liberate people from the
spiral of silence, and also ensure that development plans and decisions are relevant and
meaningful to the recipients (Melkote, S.R. 1991).
The participatory paradigm emphasizes on planning and stakeholder participation. This involves
creating public participation in identification and addressing their most felt or pressing societal
needs through community based strategies that are culturally appropriate (Muturi, N. and
Mwangi, S. 2009). In this model, all stakeholders are considered as equal, and all have a ‘voice’
in the decision making process. It is about empowerment of the beneficiaries. This model is
15
more process oriented in decision making. It gives value to horizontal forms of message transfer
and power balance. This according to Greaves, T.J.B. (www.tracy.org) is based partly on the
idea that much of the necessary knowledge for empowerment and education reside with the
teachers and learners.
This is further supported by (Tufte, T. and Mefalopulos, P. 2009) who argue that the
participatory model is about articulating processes of collective action and reflection by the
relevant stakeholders, and gives attention to empowerment of citizens. They argue that the
participatory model is a dialogic and horizontal approach to communication and development.
This model stresses reciprocal collaboration throughout all levels of participation.
2.4 Participatory Strategies
For any intervention applying the participatory approach to be successful, there is need to apply
strategies that would enhance its effectiveness. This hence makes the intervention different from
others that apply other approaches, for example diffusion, in that it ensures that participation is
encompassed in all levels of implementation, from research to evaluation (Servaes, J. 1995,
Okigbo, C. 1995).
2.4.1 Participatory communication and research
For participatory communication to take root (in Africa), there is need for participatory research
(Nyamnjoh, F. B. 1995). This is an approach in social research. Although state and non-
state actors may be involved, the expected central beneficiaries of research in this approach are
the main actors in the whole research process, with the researcher playing a facilitating role.
16
According Servaes, J. (1995), participatory research makes the following assumptions;
i. Human beings have the ability to generate knowledge, it is not a preserve of a few
experts
ii. It is a learning process for the participants in the research process as well as for the
researcher. It involves needs analysis, identification of awareness levels, analysis of
problems and implementation of relevant solutions
iii. The researcher is always conscious of the interests of the community involved in the
research
iv. It involves dialogue between the researcher and the community
v. It is about problem solving by use of the underlying human potential to solve social
problems
vi. It is about knowledge creation which would enable the researcher and the community to
analyse social environment and formulate plans of action.
Nyamnjoh’s and Servaes’ arguments in the context of this study, are consistent with CLTS,
where the community is actively involved in the research, which forms the mass of knowledge
products that are the foundation of dialogue within the whole implementation process.
2.4.2 Participatory Communication and Planning
Hancock, A. (1981) says that communication planning in development is an important factor
that be considered. He argues that in planning, communication is treated like a resource capable
of being allocated, conserved and redistributed like other resources. He further says that
communication planning implies the preparation of both long range and short range plans (i.e.
strategic and operational) for efficient and equitable use of communication resources in the
context of a particular society’s goal, means and priorities, and subject to its prevailing forms of
social and political organization. This however does not take place in a vacuum because there
17
are people and with different characteristics, and it is very essential for them to participate in the
planning.
Planning is a critical process in any activity, for it provides a logical sequence of the flow of
events against some benchmarks that would facilitate realization of the expected outputs and
eventual outcomes. In participatory communication, it is crucial to have a plan of action,
especially looking at the approach which is designed to involve many stakeholders, and the
increased recognition of the interactive nature of communication. In CLTS for example,
participation is vital.
Participation according to (Okigbo, C. 1995) implies higher level of public involvement in
communication systems, from conception, planning, implementation and review. Absence of a
plan would yield into confusion, and hence poor decision making process.
Bessette, G. (2004) presents ten different steps that are critical in planning and implementation
of participatory communication as follows:
i. Establishing a relationship with a local community and understanding the local setting
ii. Involving the community in the identification of a problem, its potential solutions, and
the decision to carry out a concrete initiative
iii. Identifying the different community groups and other stakeholders concerned with the
identified problem (or goal) and initiative
iv. Identifying communication needs, objectives and activities
v. Identifying appropriate communication tools
vi. Preparing and pre-testing communication content and materials
vii. Facilitating partnerships
viii. Producing an implementation plan
18
ix. Monitoring and evaluating the communication strategy and documenting the
development or research process
x. Planning the sharing and utilization of results
The CLTS process borrows heavily from Bessette’s and has adopted the ten steps in planning,
and this facilitates it participatory nature.
2.4.3 Participatory message development
Conveyance of a massage is a major process in communication. A good message yields positive
responses.
Tan, S. (1981) writes that it is important to look at characteristics of a message when developing
it so as to realize best results. According to Tan, S., this is based on learning theories which
predict that compliance with a message’s recommendation (which in a participatory approach
leads to decision making) depends on comprehension of the arguments, and on rewards
promised by the argument.
A good message, which is easily comprehended, should have the following characteristics (Tan,
S. 1981, Severin, J. W. and Tankard, J.W. (2001) :
i. Listenability or readability
ii. Human interest
iii. Vocabulary diversity
iv. Realism
v. Verifiability
Observance of these characteristics in message development is the catalyst to participation by
all stakeholders, and creates identity and ownership of the problems at hand and the decisions
arrived at. These are critical in CLTS, for confusion brought about by lack of clarity leads to
different perceptions, hence difficulty in yielding to action.
19
This view in CLTS is supported by Melkote, S.R. (1991) in his insistence on the need to remove
all message and source related biases for a message to be properly comprehended by the
receiver/s in a uniform way. He argues that clarity of message would make receivers understand
variances, hence make decisions not based on biasness but on proper understanding of the
message. Melkote’s argument concurs with Tan’s (ibid) argument on message structure that
messages should lead to a position where the receiver is able to draw a conclusion on his or her
own, should as much as possible be two sided (considering the pro’s and con’s) and should have
some appeal (Severin, J. W. and Tankard, J.W, 2001 and Tan S.A 1981).
Tufte, T. and Mefalopulos, P (2009) state that not everybody might agree to one sided message,
especially where their input has not been considered in its development. He states that there is
need for participatory message design, based on audiences’ inputs as the most effective way to
facilitate comprehension.
According to Melkote, S.R. (1991), there is need to embrace the participatory message
development approach where the receivers or the target group and the source contribute their
knowledge, creativity, energies, time, etc as co-equal partners. CLTS embraces this approach,
and especially in development of the visual tools and other message used on posters and
stickers, so that what is reflected is clearly and commonly understood to mean one thing by all
stakeholders.
2.5 The Participatory Communication; an African Perspective
Many state and non-state actors in Africa have over the years tended to use the top-bottom
approach to communication, mostly deep-rooted in the colonial times. The assumption has been
that people only need information on various aspects of their lives, and the information would
act on them and elicit necessary change. Such information would emanate from experts, who
would have limited interaction with the receivers. This is what White, R. A. (2008) refers to as
20
centrifugal communication process. As noted above, this view has colonial inclinations, where
the people, especially in Africa were not regarded as people with a mental capacity to be
considered in decision making processes, even on matters that directly touch on them.
The approach has been one that creates a barrier between the sender and the receiver, and the
community becomes hesitant to speaking out or voicing out their problems because they know
that there are already predetermined decisions. This however did not deliver the expected results
to the people. As a result, there has been a consistent struggle from the masses for inclusion in
decision making.
To remedy this, communication scholars have proposed what White (ibid) calls centripetal
structure of communication and social action. In this approach, the decisions come from the
periphery, (the right holder) towards the centre (the duty bearer). The duty bearer or the
government derives its power from the community (Ansu-Kyeremeh, 1997). Major decisions on
problems facing the community at the grassroots emanate from them. This therefore means that
people bring on board their indigenous knowledge and resources to address the challenges
facing them.
A practical example of participatory approaches in Africa is the struggle for independence. The
struggle had a strong backing by pro-participation rights groups and individuals which agitated
for participation of natives in all levels of governance and administration. In post-colonial
Africa, this has seen enormous results, including enshrinement of participation as a
constitutional right in many African countries, an example being The Constitution of Kenya
(2010) in a number of sections.
According to Mongula, B. (2008), participatory action begins with initiatives by people who
will no longer wait for the state or other agencies to solve their local problems and who decide
to find ways collectively to solve the problems through their own organized efforts. For this to
21
be arrived at, there is a lot of sharing of information and discussions that take place using
various channels of communication, and this would facilitate them to arrive to a consensus,
hence the decision.
2.6 Challenges facing participatory communication in development
Participatory communication in development is faced by a myriad of challenges, and this has a
major effect on its effectiveness and the eventual deliverables sought by a development project.
Some of the challenges relate to strategic approach, investment in communication departments
and institutionalization of participation, as discussed below
2.6.1 Strategic Approach
Participatory communication faces undefined audiences caused by poor audience segmentation
(McQuail 2005, Tan. S.A. 1981). This has a bearing on message development, and setting up of
clear objectives targeting the desegregated groups. In many participatory communication
events, there is sometimes the assumption that the target, or the beneficiaries of an intervention
are the decision makers, and hence the most appropriate for the target by the communication
tools like information, education and communication (IEC) tools. As a result, there is a
blockage of the intermediate influencing groups (other stakeholders), hence their omission in
participatory communication strategies.
Secondly, sometimes development agents concentrate more on mass awareness so as to gain
numbers necessary in their outputs, and forget behavior change and collective decision making.
This leaves behind other aspects that could influence the success of a project. This is a
challenge that faces CLTS, and especially as a result of the development practitioners desire to
meet donor conditions in terms of numbers reached. In the Nakuru context, the project is meant
to reach 190,000 residents of Kapatembo and Rhonda settlements in three years, hence there is a
major drive to create mass awareness on project activities. This necessarily may not translate to
22
decisions reached as a result of participation, but may be another event of diffusion.
Many development practitioners and project staff, although being conversant with participatory
approaches in development have little or no training on participatory communication. Though
lately there seems to be a positive change towards communication, not many organizations
consider a communication department as a fundamental part of their structure. This becomes a
major detriment to development, and especially where the plight of people is involved.
It is noteworthy that the two organizations implementing CLTS in Nakuru have communication
departments. However, there is no specific staff attached to the project to facilitate participatory
communication. The departments only offer support in documentation, and other mass
communication needs.
2.6.2 Investing in communication departments
In many organizations that have communication departments, there is limited investment in
communication, it is not prioritized. As a result, there is a major concentration on IEC materials
against other forms of communication. Though important, communication aspects in a project
receive little support by the national management levels of a project. (Okgibo, C. 1996). In the
Nakuru context, as stated above, though there is some investment towards communication in
both organizations, their input is more to mass communication and public relations. However,
there is considerable deliberate investment in sanitation social marketing, which to a big extent
facilitates participation in the project.
23
2.6.3 Institutionalization of participation
Melkote, S.R. (1991:236) points out that participation is a basic human right. He posits that,
“..participation is not a fringe benefit that authorities may grant as a concession but every
human being’s birthright that no authority may deny or prevent”. Locally, this position is
supported by the The Constitution of Kenya (2010) which provides for the encouragement of
public participation. In relation to this study, Section 69 (1 c) encourages participation of the
public in the management, protection and conservation of the environment. This is an important
position on participation, albeit many authorities see it as a threat to status quo, especially in
countries which have authoritarian governance structures that prevent democratic decision
making. Therefore, poor or absence of institutionalization of participation remains a major
challenge to the success of participatory communication, as it is seen as a threat to power. All in
all, the Kenyan position on participation has provided a good opportunity for the success of
CLTS.
From the challenges indicated above, it is evident that there is need to promote structures that
facilitate participation of the community on matters that hinge on them in line with Bordenave,
D. (1977) argument that participatory communication:
i. Helps the development of community’s cultural identity
ii. Acts as a vehicle for citizen self-expression
iii. Facilitates problem articulation
iv. Serves as a tool for diagnosis of community’s problems
2.7 WASH Outlook in Kenya
According to Water Services Regulatory Board (WASREB) ‘Impact: A Performance Report of
Kenya’s Water Services Sector (Issue No. 4 of 2011), access to national urban sanitation
24
coverage is averaged at 67% and water access at 47% for the period 2009/10. The then Ministry
of Public Health and Sanitation (MOPHS) estimated Kenya’s 2012 average national sanitation
coverage at 52%. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS) 2009 national census whose
report was published in 2010 indicated that of the estimated 12.4 million urban residents, 19.5%
are connected to main sewer lines, 8% use septic tanks while majority (62.5%) use pit latrines
with open defecation at 2.6%. In the rural areas, 67.7% use pit latrines, 4.3% use ventilated
improved pit latrines while open defecation in the bush stood at 20.7%. WASREB (2011) puts
national urban sanitation at 67% and water access at 47% for the period 2009/10.
2.8 WASH in Nakuru’s Kaptembwo and Kwa Rhonda settlements
As indicated earlier, Kaptembwo and Kwa Rhonda low income settlements are home to
approximately 190,000 people. This is slightly below half of the total population of Nakuru
Municipality of 473,200 (GoK, 2010). As a result, there is very high pressure on WASH, as the
demand for services continues to rise though the ability of the service providers, that is Nakuru
Water and Sanitation Services Company (NAWASSCO) and the Nakuru County Government is
limited in terms of resources.
Nakuru municipality has only 14% sewer coverage (WASREB, 2011) with the beneficiaries being
the residents of the high end market. The rest of the town, including Kaptembwo and Rhonda rely
on on-site sanitation. Interestingly, unlike in informal settlements in Nairobi, almost every plot in
Nakuru Town has a toilet of some description (Practical Action and Umande Trust 2012). A good
number of the available toilets are in bad shape, and not accessible at night, and especially by
women, children and the vulnerable groups. The result is that there is still some degree of on spot
open defecation. Additionally, quite a number of the existing toilets are full hence causing great
deal of faecal pollution from overflowing pits and the current practices of pit emptying and
dumping of faecal waste.
25
It is against this background that Practical Action, an international Non-Governmental
Organization and Umande Trust, a national civil society organization, with the support from
Comic Relief (United Kingdom) introduced the CLTS project as a participatory approach to
addressing the prevailing WASH conditions in Nakuru, commencing with Kaptembwo and Kwa
Rhonda settlements.
2.9 The approach; Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS)
Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) is an approach used to raise awareness of the benefits
of proper sanitation and good hygiene practices which are geared towards achieving and
sustaining open defecation free (ODF) status and adopting more sanitary practices. It is a
comprehensive and multidimensional strategy which empowers residents to demand better
sanitation provision and change their own hygiene practices and behavior (Karet al., 2008).
Sanan, D. and Moulik, S.G. (2007) in a World Bank publication points out that Community-Led
Total Sanitation (CLTS) is based on the principle of triggering collective behavior change. In
this approach, communities are facilitated to take collective action to adopt safe and hygienic
sanitation behavior and ensure that all households have access to safe sanitation facilities. This
approach helps communities to understand and realize the negative effects of poor sanitation
and empowers them to collectively find solutions to their sanitation challenges. Further, it
emphasizes on igniting collective behavior change through interpersonal communication.
During implementation, various processes are facilitated by community representatives, referred
to as natural leaders (Kar, K. et al 2008). These representatives have a task to form structures
within the community for discussing problems, making decisions and sometimes taking up
action on behalf of the community. In Nakuru, there are established sanitation neighbourhood
committees, which take a leading role in creation of awareness, training on hygiene, sanitation
social marketing and hand washing campaigns.
26
CLTS was pioneered in Bangladesh in 1999 by Dr. Kamal Kar, a development consultant with
expertise in participatory processes. In his consultancy work for Water Aid’s subsidy driven
sanitation delivery activities, one of his observations was that subsidy scheme had failed to
generate real demand for sanitation because it was not internalized by the people (Sanan, D. and
Moulik, S.G. 2007). His experience led to formulation of a completely rethought programme in
which he proposed a total disregard to subsidy and promoted an approach that is entirely
community-led, internalized by the people and that would bring total sanitation to their
communities – the Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS).
2.10 CLTS in Kenya
CLTS took root in Kenya in 2012 with the launching of the CLTS Coordination Unit (CCU),
and the launching of “Open Defecation Free (ODF) Rural Kenya by 2013” campaign. The unit
is tasked with the role of coordinating CLTS activities in the country. It currently runs a
website, (www.cltskenya.org) providing information on CLTS in Kenya and beyond.
According to Shit News (2011) a newsletter of the CLTS Kenya, the initial CLTS activities in
Kenya were carried out by Plan International in 2007, and sessions were conducted by Kamar
Kar, a re-known author, facilitator and pioneer of CLTS. The Government’s initial CLTS work
was in Western Kenya, where several villages were declared ODF (www.cltskenya.org).
To compliment government’s efforts, various NGO’s have been carrying out CLTS projects in
various parts of the country. However, most of the work has targeted rural areas. Plan
international is one of the NGOs that have pioneered implementation of a CLTS project in an
urban setting in Mathare Slums in Nairobi. Similarly, Practical Action and Umande Trust are
currently implementing a CLTS project in Nakuru’s Kaptembwo and Rhonda low income areas,
where this study is based.
27
2.11 CLTS in Nakuru
CLTS in Nakuru municipality is an initiative of Practical Action in partnership with and
Umande Trust, a local civil society organization in a project called “Realizing the Right to Total
Sanitation in Nakuru’s Low Income Areas”. The three years project targets Kaptembwo and
Kwa Rhonda settlements, with an estimated population of 190,000 (GoK, 2009).
With Nakuru town being declared as the fastest urbanizing town in Africa, growing at an annual
rate of 13% (UN HABITAT rating released in 2010), it is faced with numerous challenges,
WASH being one of them, hence the design of the CLTS project.
2.12 Role of Participatory Communication in WASH, a case of CLTS Approach
There has been a growing recognition that the success of WASH projects depends to a large
extent upon use of participatory communication as a facilitating tool in bringing about change
processes. UNICEF, (1999) postulates that adopting participatory communication promotes
social, political, and institutional changes at different levels by building trust between
governments and citizens, promoting a two-way communication, and exchanging knowledge
and skills. It becomes a vital tool throughout the entire cycle of a WASH project, or any other
development project.
In his study on communication, water and sanitation in Peru, Mefalopulos (2009) observed that
within the diversity of strategies related to communication and to the water and sanitation
sector, the strategies of social mobilization and interpersonal communication lead the
interventions at community and local levels, while those strategies centered on mass media and
advocacy seek to contribute to sector, national, and regional goals. There is a tendency towards
the convergence of the two models in so far as most projects partake of aspects of dissemination
and participation.
28
Case studies from Peru showed that:
i. Multiple participatory methods to achieve community mobilization were used.
ii. There was use of multiple training methods aimed at capacity building such as
workshops, the use of audiovisual pedagogical systems, training of
trainers/facilitators, demonstrative methods, the inclusion of education centers and
the training of public officials.
iii. Multiple forms of interpersonal communication such as community theater,
edutainment, group work and demonstrative sessions were used.
iv. There was use of strategies of social marketing through campaigns, merchandizing,
branding, and actions involving mass media (radio, television, press, and public
campaigns), some of which are based on elements related to the behavioral change
approach.
v. There was convergence of approaches which incorporates elements from
communication for social change and empowerment, using multiple strategies of
mass, popular, and interpersonal communication derived from quick communication
diagnosis based on participatory mechanisms such as the local communication and
social mobilization committees and the establishment of alliances with local and
national organizations.
Though the setting is different, the observations in Peru are a replica of the approaches being
taken in CLTS approaches, including in Kenya such us in Nakuru. CLTS involves
communication programs and projects aimed at improving the quality of sanitation and hygiene
services, whose purpose is to generate behavioral change by application of strategic planning
dynamics and social marketing.
29
2.13 Positioning participatory communication in CLTS in Nakuru
In CLTS, participation manifests itself in the form of dialogue, hence (Tufte, T and
Mefalopulos, P. 2009) argument that participatory communication is dialogic. Figueroa, M. E.
et al (2002) argues in the same breadth when he illustrates steps of community dialogue, which
basically replicates the foundation upon which CLTS anchors itself. Participation in dialogue by
all concerned is encouraged. For the purpose of this study, the steps have been contextualized,
to reflect the CLTS approach in Nakuru.
2.13.1 Recognition of problem
This may happen when a person or group of persons identifies a certain problem within the
community. For example, a person may identify an increase in diarrhoea cases amongst
children, and seek an answer. Tufte, T and Mefalopulos, P. (2009) refer to this as ‘naming the
world’, or problem definition.
Contextually, before the commencement of the CLTS project in Nakuru, there were prevalent
cases of diarrhoea among the residents, and occasional cases of cholera. It is noteworthy that
Nakuru has only about 14% sewer connection (WASREB, 2011), and the study areas,
Kaptembwo and Rhonda has no sewer connection (Practical Action and Umande Trust, 2012).
This leaves many residents dependent on pit latrines for sanitation needs. However, most of
them are in deplorable conditions, and insensitive to the needs of women, children and the
vulnerable, which results to misuse, and open defection. This is the problem. An attempt to
define the problems in WASH in the area led to the design of the CLTS initiative.
2.13.2 Identification and involvement of leaders and stakeholders
This may take many forms. Sometimes meetings, networking sessions or visit to authorities
may be involved. However, this comes from the people who have identified a problem and
30
moves out to make it known to others with a purpose of identifying the cause of the problem.
Someone has to take leadership. This gives people what Tufte, T and Mefalopulos, P.
(2009) call ‘voice’. All are considered equal partners. Practical Action and Umande Trust took
up this role in Nakuru. They became the voice that brought together stakeholders to address the
challenge, in addition to putting ideas on paper as a means of communicating with the donor.
2.13.3 Clarification of perceptions
People perceive things differently, and in a participatory community action, these perceptions
emerge. In the Nakuru case, diarrhoea may be caused by many factors, including lack of hand
washing, eating contaminated food etc. It is therefore critical that people hold one perception
which must be seen as the real cause of the problem, in this case fecal matter. In CLTS, various
tools could be used to show how human waste may cause diarrhoea, thus clearing the
perceptions. An example in use in Nakuru is the F Diagram that illustrates the Faecal Oral
Transmission Route, a tool that facilitates dialogue around how people eat feaces as a result of
open defecation. The F diagram shows how diseases from fecal matter can be spread—through
fluids, fingers, flies, and fields. It also shows barriers that may be used to prevent spread of
fecal matter which include toilets, safe water and hand washing with soap.
31
Figure 1.2 The F Diagram
(Source: Practical Action and Umande Trust, 2013)
2.13.4 Expression of Individual and Shared Needs
This is consensus building. CLTS seeks to address sanitation challenges of the residents at the
bottom of the ladder. It is therefore important to ensure that all participate, bearing in mind that
not all are affected by a problem, and those affected could be exposed to different degrees of the
problem. In CLTS, the perception that diarrhoea is an individual problem is discouraged owing
to the various means of transmission (see F diagram above). Participatory communication calls
all to express themselves in a dialogues session. CLTS hinges itself on this assumption that
everyone is part of the problem, so the solution has to come from everyone.
In the study area, there are people of different social economic status residing there. This is
reflected by the kind of housing, and sanitation facilities in place within some of the residential
32
plots. In the CLTS initiative, landlords, tenants, business community and own plot occupiers are
involved in the deliberations to address the challenges. In addition, all are properly represented
in the sanitation neighbourhood committees as equal partners. This has greatly helped progress
and agreement to act, and especially on hand washing campaigns and investment in toilets
construction.
2.13.5 Vision of the Future; Area Mapping
The approach allows all to dream of how they would want their area to look like in the absence
of the problem. The visioning may target country, village, plot, household levels. In CLTS, the
participants map out their vision on paper, with discussions leading to one common map
acceptable by all.
2.13.6 Assessment of Current Status
In CLTS, the development agent acts as a facilitator of dialogue. He/she employs various tools
to achieve dialogue around the topic at hand. A practical example is the use of posters, a
communication tool prepared in response to the challenge, where the residents pick posters that
depict challenges facing their area, in order of seriousness. This is referred to as ‘Three Pile
Sorting’. This process is not guided so as to ensure that the participants agree on the order the
posters by themselves in order of the bad, the good and the best in terms of sanitation practices.
It helps them measure the size of the problem, and a true image of the prevailing sanitation
conditions is drawn. Contextually, CLTS Nakuru has a localized Three Pile Sorting Tool which
is a practical tool that facilitates participatory communication.
2.13.7 Setting objectives
According to Figueroa, M.E. et al (2002), this is an important step, for it creates the basis for
discussion on possible solutions. In CLTS, Open Defecation (OD) is considered to be the major
33
factor that contributes to water related illnesses. It is at this step that the community would start
asking themselves what they can do to reduce OD. Figueroa, M E (ibid) points out that there is
need to set an achievable goal, not too high and not too low. For example, eradicating OD in 5
months may be a very ambitious, unachievable goal, whereas achieving OD in 10 years may be
too low. In the process, the community is guided to set moderate goals, taking into consideration
their potential to implement such. In Nakuru, eradication of OD so as to declare Kaptembwo
and Rhonda Open Defecation Free (ODF) zone is set to be achieved in three years.
2.13.8 Action
Action starts to take place when the community starts interrogating its potential in addressing
the problem. This could be by construction of toilets, hand washing with soap etc. Figueroa,
M.E (2002) notes that the more the community participates and sees the proposed actions as
‘theirs,’ the more likely that they will take action. Likewise, the more a community is ‘involved
and committed’ the higher the empowerment and sense of collective self-efficacy that the
community will develop. This makes it easier for sharing of responsibilities and is key in CLTS
which advocates for subsidy free engagement. It motivates the community to own up process,
and hence reaches to a point where they ask questions, “Who does what and when do we need
to do each activity and organize ourselves to accomplish our goals?” (Figueroa, M.E. 2002).
The resultant is a CLTS work plan.
In the CLTS approach to WASH challenges, the final step is declaring a village or an area Open
Defecation Free (ODF), amid celebrations and reward scheme, after an assessment by a team
led by the Ministry of Health’s Public Health Department.
34
Tufte, T and Mefalopulos, P. (2009) state that free and open dialogue remains the key principle
of participatory communication. Backing this up, Yoon, C.S. (1996) states that participatory
communication;
i. supports the diagnosis of problem situations and the presentation of the problem to
the community,
ii. stimulates community deliberation and the prioritizing of problems,
iii. supports the exchange of ideas and experiences among distant communities through
exchange learning and dialogue programmes,
iv. helps community organizations find solutions to problems,
v. informs the community about available services and how to gain access to them by
playing an advocacy role
vi. provides for training of community members on how to use various tools to inform
the general public about their challenges,
vii. helps communities to obtain legitimization and support from authorities by involving
the authorities in a dialogue process,
viii. provides feedback to the community about the progress and achievements of
community projects, and
ix. Enhances member’s self-esteem and sense of collective self-efficacy.
2.14 Extension and participatory communication in Nakuru
CLTS heavily depends on community mobilizers (community health workers and community
leaders) referred to as natural leaders (Kar, K. et al 2008) who work on voluntary basis in line
with the no subsidy principle in CLTS. This corresponds with what Okigbo, C. (1996) calls
extension and development communication. In extension, communication is interpersonal, that
is face to face. Okigbo, C. (1996) points out that this approach is very useful in disseminating
useful information on agriculture, health and sanitation.
35
Borrowing Okigbo’s argument, in a CLTS approach, the extension workers (community
mobilizers or natural leaders) facilitate dissemination of CLTS information to the local
community. The mobilizers constantly communicate with the locals and closely identify with
them. They facilitate discussions that lead to definition and understanding of a problem so that
the community can derive a solution. This interactive process culminates to action, hence
implementation of self-driven and owned WASH interventions. The CLTS project in Nakuru
has engaged 140 natural leaders who are actively involved in the project activities.
2.15 The limits of participatory communication
Because they provide support for local development initiatives, communication activities have a
direct impact on community participation in local development, irrespective of their strength.
They encourage people to believe that their development challenges are not insurmountable and
that, rather than being passive onlookers, they can take action on their own and achieve results.
However, it is noteworthy that communication is not enough by itself. Financial and in some
instances political will is needed, and especially in a WASH initiative like CLTS, so as to
smoothen the facilitation process carried out by the development agents. In this context, proper
budgeting is required to cover the supportive role of a project where participatory
communication is required,
Whereas communication plays a major role in development, and provides solutions and in some
cases leads to realization of solutions to some development problems, it is limited in some
instances as it may not be the appropriate means to achieve a solution to some unique problems.
Communication may lead to a solution, immediate or long term on some issues, but may also be
of no use in some, especially those which require physical inputs.
Thirdly, participation is difficult to achieve, and it takes time and a lot of involvement. This
36
may lead to frustration and despair, which may wreck an otherwise what would have been a
successful project. In the context of CLTS, like in any other field of development, one must be
aware of possible limitations. However, participatory communication is critical in sustainable
development.
Some of the limitations in participatory communication include:
2.15.1 Conflict
Participation may lead to conflict. Yoon, C.S. (1996), posits that conflict may result from the
process’ effects on power relations. Participatory communication provides the opportunity of
those with, and without power to express themselves freely, supporting and opposing each other
in an attempt to arrive at a collective decision. Proponents of status quo feel that their power is
being challenged, and this may be cause of conflict. Yoon, C.S. (1996), argues that by
participating, people claim power for themselves, thereby threatening the influence of the
power-holders. In a CLTS approach, this usually takes the shape where the state officers feel
that the community is taking a centre stage in deliberations and decision making, against their
feeling that they are experts and have power to influence decisions. This conflict if not properly
managed may stall and eventually make a project fail.
2.15.2 Up-scaling
Replication and up-scaling are major objectives of any project, especially those being
implemented by (NGOs). Replication of participatory communication is a major obstacle to
NGOs interested in extending its benefits to a majority of the communities they serve. Yoon,
C.S. (ibid), says that this difficulty may arise owing to human nature and ability, for example,
some may be talented and effective communicators whereas others may not, while some may be
charismatic and have the ability to make things happen whereas others may not. As a result,
37
organizations may feel frustrated when dealing with this mixture of people, for they may feel
that one group is derailing the other, hence affecting delivery of results. It is important to note
that these attributes presently remain elusive and escape identification or replication through
training.
2.15.3 Long-term Commitment
Participation is a process, and it takes time for results to manifest. This sometimes may not
happen within a project set-up, including CLTS, most of which have donor conditions that must
be met within a specific time frame and budget. Many donor funded projects end when the
results of participatory communication start to show up. A similar condition may happen in
CLTS, even in the Nakuru case, which has a span of only three years. There are possibilities
that effectiveness of participatory communication would be evident in the last months of the
project, and with no facilitation of the development agents, the vibrancy may fade out and die.
Yoon, C.S. (ibid) argues that a participatory communication project needs to last longer, and
there is need to sustain long terms commitment of the community.
2.15.4 Manipulation
Achieving the outcomes of a project is critical to any organization. The strive to achieve them
may lead to manipulation of the community so as to take a certain decision. Yoon, C.S. (ibid)
argues that people should not be manipulated, even if it appears to be in their best interest. For
example, in the Nakuru CLTS project under study, there may be possibilities of project staff
using the local administration, or the municipal council to enforce some of the proposals in
toilets construction, hence denying the community the opportunity to make decisions acceptable
by a majority. There could also be a tendency to use the divide and rule approach, when
participation leads to a complete change of course from what an organization had anticipated,
making it feel manipulated by the community. The letter and spirit of CLTS, and indeed
38
participatory communication is to create an opportunity for the beneficiary community to arrive
at a decision that is acceptable to them, and one that would lead into action.
2.16 Conclusion
Participation is an essential condition for development to happen. Development research and the
implementation of development initiatives will not have much impact without the effective
participation of the communities.
Similarly, participatory communication is an essential part of development. The way the
development practitioner will approach a local community, the attitude he/she will adopt in
interacting with community members, the way he/she will understand and discuss issues, the
way he/she will collect and share information involve ways of establishing communication with
people.
The way this communication will be established and nurtured will affect the way in which
people will feel involved in the issues raised and the way in which they will participate - or not
participate - in a development initiative.
Participatory communication is about involving communities in development projects and
development research. It is a tool, not a recipe.
39
CHAPTER THREE
3.0 Methodology
This chapter presents the methods and tools that were used in data collection and analysis. Data
collection entailed the target population, type of data and sampling technique used to obtain
required sample for the study. This study used appropriate statistical methods including mean,
percentages and summation to analyse the collected data.
3.1 Study area
This study was carried out in Kaptembwo and Kwa Rhonda low income settlements in Nakuru
which has a population of over 190,000 people (GOK 2010). The area is within Nakuru
Municipality in Nakuru County, and is generally a planned area. The place was chosen owing to
the current WASH initiative taking place in the area, which formed the basis of this study.
Owing to the high number of beneficiaries of the CLTS project in Nakuru (190,000) this study
used a sample of the population, defined by this study as any set of persons having a common
observable characteristic (Mugenda and Mugenda, 1999). To achieve this, the study used
sampling methods that allowed for representative cross-sections, where particular groups were
identified or targeted. In the interest of time and resources, the study limited itself to residents
(tenants, landlords, and natural leaders), project staff, a senior public health official and CLTS
trainers in Nakuru.
3.2 Type of data and collection procedure
This study collected primary data from the study area using the survey method. Being a
descriptive study, it used both qualitative and quantitative approaches, hence generating largely
qualitative and quantitative data.
40
1) Qualitative data
This study generated a lot of qualitative data. This was in the form of information which did
not present itself in numerical form and was descriptive. This includes in-depth interview
transcripts, answers to open-ended survey questions, and images. .The data appeared mostly
in conversational or narrative form. This data specially came from open ended questions,
written notes on questionnaires and key informant interviews. This type of data was
descriptive and more conclusive as it was in-depth.
2) Quantitative data
This survey also gathered quantitative data. Quantitative data had a numerical description,
e.g. data on the ages of respondents, income levels, years of tenancy and household sizes.
To be able to administer the various selected tools in the survey, authorization from the
University and the Ministry of Health in Nakuru was be sought and granted.
For the purposes of conducting the research, eight (8) researchers were trained and given
introduction letters indicating the purpose of the study. They were also taken through ethical
procedures that were to be followed throughout the survey.
3.3 Sample design and sampling procedures
This study used both structured and unstructured surveys. Interviewers were trained to
administer questionnaires in addition to key informants’ self-administered questionnaires and
interviews by the researcher. As a result, the study used a stratified random sampling method
targeting four (4) villages identified using the cluster method. To achieve the required numbers,
each cluster provided a prescribed number of respondents. The study therefore targeted four (4)
villages (2 in each area), each providing a total of twenty (20) respondents, giving a total sample
size of eighty (80) respondents. The study also sent self-administered questionnaires to ten (10)
key informants comprising of six (6) project staff (4 from Umande Trust and 2 from Practical
Action) and 4 public health officials involved in the implementation of the CLTS project.
41
Additionally, purposive sampling was employed to identify two senior ministry of health staff
and two CLTS trainers for interviews.
3.4 Research tools
This study adopted the case study approach. The approach used multiple data collection
methods and analysis techniques.
Mugenda and Mugenda, (1999) points out that research tools are a set of standard questions
normally targeting respondents of a particular group under study. Identification of a good tool is
critical in the study because the findings or conclusions are based upon the type of information
collected, and the data collected is entirely dependent upon the questions asked to the
respondents. It may be termed in a computer language as ‘garbage in garbage out’. The research
tool provides the input into the study and therefore the quality and validity of the output (the
findings), are solely dependent on it.
To achieve this, this study used the following tools:
3.4.1 The questionnaire
Since the study applied structured surveys in data collection, the main tool used was the
questionnaire. This targeted the direct beneficiaries of the CLTS initiative in the study area. A
self-administered questionnaire was also used among key informants (the project staff and
public health officials in Nakuru) involved in the implementation of CLTS project. The
questionnaires were both open and close ended.
3.4.2 Interview schedules
Interview schedules were prepared for use in conducting key informant interviews. The
schedules assisted the researcher to stay on track during the interviews targeting a senior
ministry of health staff and CLTS trainers. Interviews were face to face with the senior public
health official whereas the CLTS trainers were interviewed on telephone.
42
3.5 Processing and analysing data
Processing and analysing data involved a number of closely related operations performed with
the purpose of summarizing the collected data and organizing it in a manner that answers the
research questions (objectives).
Mugenda, G.A. (2003) states that survey research may be descriptive, exploratory, or involve
advanced statistical analysis. A survey gathers qualitative and quantitative data, which is
processed and analysed using various analytical tools so as to respond to the objectives and
hypotheses of a study. This study applied the descriptive approach in data analysis.
3.5.1 Quantitative data
For quantitative data, descriptive methods were employed. In essence, the data was numerical or
coded numerically to facilitate quantitative analysis. Frequencies, percentages, charts, figures,
frequency tables were used in the analysis and presentation of data. The analysis involved
aggregation, a statistical summation of individual cases. As a result, the data had to be in
numerical form or was otherwise quantified through the process of coding.
This study used frequency distribution tables to analyse data. It used two types of frequency
distribution tables namely univariate and bivariate frequency distribution table
3.5.2 Qualitative data
The survey method used in this study also generated a lot of qualitative data; information which
did not present itself in numerical form and was descriptive, appearing mostly in conversational
or narrative form. Qualitative methods of collecting data are descriptive rather than drawing
statistical inferences. As in the quantitative data, some of the qualitative data was coded so that
43
it could be analysed statistically and presented using descriptive methods as above.
This study adopted a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches, which allowed
statistically reliable information obtained from numerical measurement to be backed up by and
enriched by information from the research participants' explanations.
44
CHAPTER FOUR 4.0 Data analysis and presentation
This chapter provides the findings of the research carried out in Nakuru’s Kaptembwo and Kwa
Rhonda settlements. It involves interpretation and presentation of research findings of this
study. A total of 80 questionnaires were issued out to project beneficiaries with a 100 percent
(100%) return rate. A separate self-administered questionnaire was emailed to 10 key
informants who included project teams from Practical Action, Umande Trust and Ministry of
Health, Public health officers. Eight (8) of the key informants returned their questionnaires,
accounting eighty percent (80%). Additionally, another set of key informants who included two
CLTS trainers and one senior Ministry of Health official were interviewed.
The quantitative data collected was coded numerically, analyzed and presented in frequencies,
percentages, tables, and charts. For the qualitative data, it was coded, analyzed statistically and
presented using descriptive methods.
4.1 Demographic Data
This study used a sample of 80 respondents drawn from four villages namely Sewerage and
Jasho in Kwa Rhonda, and Technology and Dip in Kaptembwo, arrived at randomly from plots
that have been actively involved in CLTS activities. Out of the sample, fifty three percent (53%)
of the respondents were female and forty seven percent (47 %) male. The sample also shows
that almost all the respondents (93%) are married.
In terms of age (figure 4.1), there was a distribution across age brackets living in the area, with
the low ages (18-25) and high ages (over 55 years) posting 9 percent each. Otherwise the
majority of the respondents were in the age bracket of 36-45 years (47%).
45
Figure 4.1 Distribution of respondents by age
Source: Researcher
The study also found out that most of the respondents, (56 percent) had a high school education,
with those who indicated that they had not attended any formal education posting two percent
(2%) and this is majorly from those over 55 years of age. It also indicated that five percent (5%)
of the respondents had tertiary education, with a partly two percent (2%) having university level
education as shown in figure 4.2 below.
Figure 4.2 Education levels
Source: Researcher
46
As shown in figure 4.3 below, most of the respondents in the study indicated that they on
average have a household of 4-6 members (62%). However, most of the respondents indicated a
mixed family member’s composition of adults and children.
Figure 4.3 Household sizes
Source: Researcher
In terms of economic welfare (figure 4.4), a majority of the respondents (67%) indicate that they
were self-employed, with a majority of them operating small scale businesses in the area. These
businesses range from shops, kiosks, green groceries and small size workshops, while a high
earning percentage of the self-employed respondents were landlords whose source of income
was rent. A small percentage of the respondents (2%) work as casual labourers while seven
percent (7%) are employed, either as a low paying security guards or teachers. Figure 4.4 below
shows the distribution of types of employment amongst the respondents.
47
Figure 4.4 Type of employment
Source: Researcher
The study results (figure 4.5) indicate that thirty nine percent (39%) of the respondents earn
daily, especially the small scale business people, monthly (28%) for the landlords and the
employed and twenty seven percent (32%) earn weekly, and these are composed of the small
scale business people and the casual labourers.
Figure 4.5 Frequency of income
Source: Researcher
48
Despite living in an area that is generally considered a low income area, most of the respondents
indicated that they earn more than Ksh 10,000. As shown in figure 4.6 below, over sixty percent
(60%) earn over Ksh. 10,000. The highest earning range (over 20,000) account for twenty six
percent (26%) and this group is composed mostly of landlords and retirees, most of them who
are landlords who are key players in the project. Nine percent (9%) of the respondents indicated
that they earn less than Ksh 2,000 per month.
Figure 4.6 Income levels
Source: Researcher
This study also shows that most of the residents (96 percent) are not natives of the area but have
migrated there from other areas. However, most of the residents (84 percent) have resided in the
respective areas for more than ten (10) years while seventy percent (70%) have resided in the
same house for over ten (10) years. This indicates that most residents have had to do with poor
sanitation conditions for a long time, hence have adequate knowledge of the same as illustrated
in figure 4.7 below.
Most residents agree that the conditions of sanitation facilities in the area are within acceptable
49
standards, with 60 percent, 65 percent and 54 percent returning a good verdict for toilets,
bathrooms and hand washing facilities respectively, relating this to the effects of the CLTS
initiative in the areas. As shown in the figure 4.7 below, only 16 percent indicated that hand
washing facilities are bad or do not exist within their plots. This forms a very important basis
for this study since it around the sanitation conditions in their plots or household that the
residents participate in the CLTS project, especially in an attempt to move from bad to fair to
good, which is a major sign of open defecation free areas. Additionally, the findings show level
of satisfaction and pride in an area, hence the need for uptake of new initiatives that would
improve the existing conditions, thus giving the residents an opportunity to raise their views on
the issues affecting them.
Figure 2.7 Sanitation condition
Source: Researcher
4.2 CLTS Knowledge This being a CLTS based study, it sought to establish the knowledge levels of some of concepts
commonly used to communicate in the project. From the findings of the study, on average, over
ninety percent (90.8%) of the respondents indicated that they have enough knowledge of the
concepts used in CLTS whereas slightly above nine percent (9.2%) posted the negative result. It
is noteworthy that most of the residents were however very conversant with the general terms
50
used in WASH and above average were not conversant with technical terms used in CLTS. For
instance, slightly above forty seven percent (47.5%) were not conversant with the term Three
Pile Sorting, a key participatory communication tool that helps prioritize sanitation needs in an
area. The table (4.1) below shows the results on CLTS knowledge.
Figure 4.1 CLTS knowledge
CLTS Term Those who understand them
Those who don’t understand
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Hand washing with soap 80 100 0 0
Critical hand washing times 80 100 0 0
Participatory Toilets design
session
68 85 12 15
Community Mobilizers 76 95 4 5
The feacal oral transmission
route
74 92.5 6 7.5
The sanitation ladder 68 85 12 15
Open defecation 74 92.5 6 7.5
Open defecation free area 74 92.5 6 7.5
Community Health workers 80 100 0 0
Diarrhoea diseases 80 100 0 0
Transmission barriers 76 95 4 5
Three pile sorting 42 52.5 38 47.5
Source: Researcher
4.3 CLTS Awareness
51
This study targeted the areas where CLTS is being implemented and hence all the respondents
were aware of the CLTS initiative. The study established that most of the respondents (45
percent) learnt of the existence of the project in 2013, during its second year of implementation.
Thirty eight percent (38%) learnt of it in its first year (2012) and while seventeen percent (17%)
learnt of it in 2014. The study also found out that eighty eight percent (88%) of the residents
have attended a CLTS session within the area with most indicating that the meeting was
conducted by project team members from Umande Trust, Practical Action and Health Ministry
officials. Some also indicated that the areas’ neighbourhood committee members and Krep
Bank officials also conducted some of the sessions jointly with the project team.
Stakeholder’s participation in project meetings
This study found out that the respondents who have attended various sessions on CLTS did so
in different capacities as stakeholders (Figure 4.8). Thirty seven percent (37%) of those who
have ever attended a CLTS session were community health workers (CHW) who are actively
involved in addressing health issues in the area. Some of these are either tenants or landlords in
the said areas. Another section of stakeholders who attended various project meetings are
landlords representing twenty seven percent (27%) of the respondents and eleven percent (11%)
as tenants. Others who have ever attended a CLTS session include religious leaders, plot
caretakers, caregivers and village elders, who account for twenty percent (25%).
The study also established that there is another category of stakeholders who attend project
meeting at different times. These include KRep Bank officials (representing the credit facility
provider), schools (teachers and pupils), CLTS trainers, county and national government
officials as well as representatives of other civil societies and NGOs domiciled in Nakuru.
There is also participation of a cross section of the private sector in Nakuru in planning
sessions, especially for the Global Hand Washing Day’s celebrations.
Figure 4.8 Stakeholders participation in CLTS project meetings
52
Source: Researcher
From the study findings, those who attended such meeting were informed through interpersonal
communication from colleagues, Ministry of Health Community Health Extension Workers
(CHEW) with community health workers (CHW) playing a major intermediary role. Only a few
indicated that they were informed by officers from Umande Trust and Practical Action.
With a good number of the respondents indicating that they have attended various CLTS
sessions, this study also found out that all of them have in one way or the other played a
significant role toward the attainment of CLTS goals in the area. Most of the residents have
been actively involved in community mobilization activities (37%) as opposed to other
activities that form part of the CLTS work plan. It is also notable that eighteen percent (18%) of
the respondents indicated that they have not played any role in the CLTS project, despite the
fact that they have the knowledge on it. Other activities that recorded between four percent (4%)
and seven percent (7%) include triggering of action, hand washing activities, construction of
new toilets and there is a case of promotion of good sanitation practices in schools and in
church at seven percent (7%).
4.4 Participation.
53
CLTS is an initiative that adopts a participatory approach. This study sought to establish
respondent’s role in the project by way of involvement in various project phases. The study
found out that there were high levels of participation by the respondents on phases that are less
technical. The table (4.2) below shows that above half of the respondents (55%) participated in
identification of the area of intervention (Kaptembwo and Kwa Rhonda) but a low percentage
(35%) was involved in needs assessment phase of the project. An even lower number (15%)
was involved in the technical project formulation phase, with a low of (17.5%) agreeing to
having participated in the project evaluation phase. It is noteworthy that the project is in its final
year, and hence one midterm evaluation has been conducted. A score of sixty percent (65%) is
the highest level of participation noted, and this involves participation in implementation of
direct activities.
Figure 4.2 Participation in project phases
Project Level Involved Not Involved No Percentage No. Percentage
Identification of area/ sector of intervention 44 55 36 45
Research/Needs Assessment 28 35 52 65
Project formulation 12 15 68 85
Planning (strategy design and work plan by
the project)
44 55 36 45
Implementation 52 65 28 35
Evaluation 14 17.5 66 82.5
Source: Researcher
There is however a sharp contrast as it relates to the project team. This study found out that all
project team members agree that most project beneficiaries are involved in all project phases
save for the project formulation phase. Only twenty percent (15%) of the project beneficiaries
said that they are involved in project formulation.
54
The same contrast is evident from the results of involvement in project research/needs
assessment, where a majority of the project beneficiaries’ respondents (65%) indicated that they
were not involved against a one hundred percent (100 %) result from the project team that
indicated involvement of the project beneficiaries in this stage.
Concerns on the level of participation was also raised in the interviews with the key informants
(trainers and senior ministry of health official) who said that there is still need to improve on
this aspect, as most communities are considered less skilled to be involved in some of the
project phases, especially those that are considered to be more technical.
4.5 Sector Identification
Amongst those who indicated that they participated in the identification of the sector or area of
intervention, most of them stated that tenants, landlords, community health workers (CHWs)
and the project team were involved. They indicated that some of the reasons why the area was
selected include the fact that the area was in a bad sanitation condition prior to commencement
of the project, many instances of open defection and factors associated to the fact that the area
is a low income one. Seven percent (7%) indicated that poor sanitation hot spot mapping was
used to identify the area of intervention. However, twenty percent (20%) indicated that they
didn’t know why the area was selected while twenty five percent (25%) said that they didn’t
know how the area was selected.
The key informants also commented on this issue saying that in WASH, in most cases it is the
organizations that identify an area of intervention using their own parameters, and also using
conditions given by the probable funding agencies. For this case, the key informants noted that
some of the information available indicted that Practical Action had worked in the area for a
long time, and hence had identified sanitation as a major challenge facing the residents. The
project team indicated the prevailing sanitation conditions led to a joint response to a call for
proposals from Comic Relief (UK) by Practical Action and Umande Trust.
55
4.6 Communication tools This study finding indicates that the usage of communication tools cut across the board. The
study found out that there is high uptake of participatory communication media which include
project meeting at one hundred percent (100%), public barazas at ninety one percent (91%),
community mobilizers at ninety one (91%), opinion leaders at ninety five percent (95%) and
focus group discussions at ninety three percent (93%). However, the study also shows that there
is high use of non-participatory tools including posters at ninety five percent (95%), local
administration at seventy four percent (74%). Other non-participatory means recorded low
usage. These include radio at five percent (5%), telephone calls at twenty three percent (23%),
SMS at twenty percent (20 %) and newspapers recording zero percent (0%). The study also
found out that twenty eight percent (28%) of the respondents point out at social media as one of
the medium of communication in use in CLTS, some stating the presence of a project’s
Facebook page. Table 4.3 below illustrates the usage of communication tools in the project.
Figure 4.3 Communication tools
Frequency
Project Meetings
Public Barazas
Radio
Community Mobilizers
Posters
Telephone calls
Local Administration
86 78 4 78 76 20 64 %tage 100 91 5 91 88 23 74 SMS
Opinion Leaders
Letters
Focus Group Discussions
Songs
Visits
Newspaper
Social media
16 76 30 74 78 62 0 22 20 95 38 93 98 78 0 28 Source: Researcher
In addition, this study also found out that the project staffs as well as the community mostly use
similar tools in communication amongst themselves. The most common tools used to
56
communicate with the community include project meetings, community mobilizers, telephone
calls, opinion leaders and letters. However, the study found out that fewer tools are used to get
communication from the community, and most of the tools in this case are participatory. These
include project meetings, community mobilizers and telephone calls (each at 100 %) and
opinion leaders at forty percent (40%).
Participatory communication methods used in the project include probing, discussions,
dialogue, participatory monitoring and evaluation, transect walk, participatory reviews and
sharing forums facilitated by the project team. Views from other development partners and
stakeholders operating within the area, and action research are also important communication
tools used in the project.
4.7 Participatory communication in the project
With the main objective of participatory communication being triggering behavior change by
provision of information allowing maximum participation of the beneficiary community in the
whole project cycle, the study sought to find out the extent to which the respondents would rate
general statement touching on aspects of participatory communication. It is important to note
that results indicate that there are still gaps being experienced in application of participatory
communication. The highest score on this is at seventy two percent (72%) where respondents
indicated that they always get the opportunity to ask and respond to questions with the lowest
percentage (19%) agreeing that they were involved in the participatory message development
process. In addition, below average (43%) of the respondents agree that that communication
between staff and the community members is critical in identification of challenges and
solutions that lead to ownership of the project by the community. However, a high percentage
of seventy percent (70%) strongly agree they get an opportunity to make contributions which
are in turn useful and used in decision making process. It is also important to note that though
57
almost all respondents do not strongly disagree with the statements, five percent (5%) disagree
with all the statements, with of forty six percent (46%) disagreeing and nineteen percent (19%)
strongly disagreeing with the statement that the messages used create fear and disgust as is
expected of them. Table 4.4 below shows responses to the extent to which the respondents agree
to some statements on sanitation and participatory communication issues.
From the key informants (project team), it was found out that participation and dialogue plays a
very important role in the project. This according to the respondents has helped in identification
of sanitation hotspots, identification of main stakeholders in CLTS process, buy in of the CLTS
concepts by the community and other stakeholders who include the County Government of
Nakuru. The key informants’ interviews also posted similar results indicating that a sanitation
project of the CLTS nature involves a lot of discussions and dialogue sessions in all project
phases. They all agreed to have been involved in dialogue sessions with the project team and the
beneficiaries, especially in participatory training and demonstration sessions. The Ministry of
Health official also admitted to having been involved in several cycles of discussions on various
sanitation challenges in the area with a view to identify the role of the ministry as a key
stakeholder in sanitation.
58
Figure 4.4 Respondents perceptions on CLTS
Statement
Percentage
Strongly
Agree
Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly
disagree
I always get a chance to ask and respond to
questions when I attend a CLTS session
72 21 2 5 0
Debates in a CLTS session are informative and
enlightening
58 37 0 5 0
The project team communicates clearly on issues
to do with CLTS
67 28 5
The project team distribute materials that that I
consider important in sanitation
48 45 2 5
The community feels respected by the project
team
51 42 2 5
Clear and honest communication helps to
encourage and strengthen relationship with the
community for maximum results
60 35 5
The community members are allowed in in many
ways to offer their ideas and opinions and are
part of the decision making process
70 25 0 5 0
Communication between the project staff and the
community members is critical in identification
of challenges and solutions that lead to project
ownership by the concerned community
43 52 5
The messages used in CLTS training sessions
create fear and disgust
19 14 2 46 19
The messages are appealing to me and likely to
make me change behavior and attitude
58 37 0 5
I participated in the development of messages
used in outreach sessions within the plots.
19 51 16 14
Source: Researcher
59
Sanitation uptake
Despite the fact that most of the respondents as indicated in the results have the knowledge on
CLTS, and the fact that they have participated in the implementation process, the uptake of
some of the components of the project is low. This result is similar from both the project
beneficiaries and project team members who have noted high uptake in hand washing related
activities and, very low levels of uptake of sanitation loans as well as construction of new toilet
blocks.
The study findings show that twenty six percent (26%) of the respondents have built a new
toilet and a partly seven percent (7%) have taken a loan to improve sanitation facilities in their
plots/homesteads as envisaged by the project. However, results have shown a high uptake on
hand washing related activities, with a high percentage (79%) indicating that they have been
able to put up a hand washing facility of some kind within their house/plot.
Further, the study findings indicate that ninety three percent (93) of the respondents believe that
the project is achieving its objectives. This they say is as a result of the various project related
activities that are being carried out by the residents. Some of the activities include improved
hand washing practices, taking up of sanitation loans and building of new toilet blocks, and also
considerable behavior change and participation by landlords in improvement of sanitation
conditions in their plots.
4.8 Project team communication knowledge.
A total of ten direct project team members were issued with a self-administered questionnaire,
of which eight responded. These are the staff members that are involved in the day to day
running of the project in the two informal settlements, and are full time based in Nakuru offices
of their respective organizations. These respondents were considered as key informants on the
project. The study sought to establish their knowledge on a number of participation and
60
communication issues. The staffs were drawn from three organizations implementing the
project as shown in figure 4.9 below.
Figure 4.9 Project team distribution
Source: Researcher
In terms of gender, there was a balanced distribution at 50% of each gender, representing 80%
of the project team sample.
The study found out that six of the project team members have been in it since inception and for
a period of 3 year. However, two of the eight who responded have been in the project for a
period that is less than two years. However, all of them have worked with their respective
organization for a period of over five years.
4.9 Role of participation in CLTS.
The study found out that all the project team members agreed that participation has a very major
role to play in the project. Some indicated that active participation by community has been a
deliberate measure taken by the project to ensure that project activities implementation benefit
all. Some of the approaches used to ensure participation include representation of both male and
female in any project meetings, inclusion of representatives of vulnerable groups, landlords as
well as tenants in neighbourhood committees and CLTS training sessions. The project team
also noted that participation is also important in project planning.
61
Some of the respondents also indicated that participation in the project is important for
achievement of ODF and must involve all because effects of OD affect all, those who have
achieved ODF status in their plots as well as those who have OD since the means of
transmission (parasites) of diarrhea diseases go beyond infrastructural barriers.
The respondents gave a number of advantages for participation in a project. These include,
promotion of a project implementation process, provision of positive critique and balanced
opinion, ensuring freedom of expression ensuring dignity and recognition of participants in
addition to helping in capturing of a lot of qualitative data, and all these are important in the
sustainability of the project. Participation also promotes stakeholder involvement in decision
making and planning.
They however noted that participation is expensive and it requires funding and facilitation, it
takes time, and this may delay project implementation which may go well beyond the set
implementation period. The study also found out that participation needs to be strongly guided
to avoid diversion from the subject of discussion by participants. It was additionally noted that
where a large crowd of people is involved, some people, especially public officials and opinion
leaders may dominate the sessions hence excluding communication of views held by the weaker
persons in confidence and in terms of status in the society. It is also challenging and difficult to
facilitate large meetings and build consensus on hot issues
4.10 Training
The results of this study indicate that none of the project staff is trained on communication.
However, most of them (6) have ever attended some form training on communication, more so
on communication skills in their general work related duties. The study indicated that some of
the project staffs from Umande Trust and Practical Action were taken through communication
training on how to capture and document project impacts and process effectively through case
62
studies, and human interest stories and also on how to develop communication materials such as
technical briefs, posters and project profile.
However, all agree that communication is vital in the project and would greatly assist in the
realization of the project objectives, hence making the implementation easier and smooth. Two
(2) of the project team members saw communication as a tool used in the project, whereas the
rest thought of communication as a means and strategy to pass information and create
awareness within the project This would in turn trigger communities through creation of
disgust, shame and fear of their unhygienic practices which calls for strong facilitation and
strong messages that would ensure a process where communities are willing and eager to fight
such practices on their own hence achieve open defection free (ODF) areas with or without
direct support of any project/ initiatives.
4.11 Strengths / Limitations of communication in the project
Strengths
The study found out that communication in the project is people driven and this has led to
achievement of some of the expected results. The study noted that communication in CLTS
include facilitation of participation, facilitation of opinion sharing hence triggering action, and
creation of understanding of self and community leading to desired change towards hygienic
practices. This according to them has led to ownership of the project by the community. A
major observation is that communication has led to the change in behaviour amongst the
landlords who have now started improving sanitation conditions in their plots by way
construction of new toilets and uptake of loan from sanitation from Krep Bank, which has been
contracted.
The project team members also indicated that communication in a project facilitates people to
63
understand health related threats against them and applying own solutions to resolve the same
with limited or no external input. There is limited and no dictation of what is to be done.
Limitations
The study findings indicate that it is expensive especially in development/production of
communication materials, especially as the project progresses. It also found out that there is
need for constant innovativeness especially in generating new communication messages over
time as people get used to hearing the same messages hence diminishing responsiveness. The
key informants also noted that it is a challenge to have a common understanding of some of the
terminologies used and relating them to different cultures and communities living within the
project area. This leads to information gaps that need to be filled by external people (experts).
The study further found out that communication has a limitation in terms of the project area and
setting. With the CLTS project being implemented in urban low income areas, the areas are
highly regulated environments compared to the rural areas, information going to people under
existing policies/practices by respective authorities (County Government, Water Utilities)
dictates the terms and these may not be compatible with what local people would prefer, hence
forcing dialogue to follow a certain path, hence limiting the choice of options.
From the project team, it was found out that the CLTS approach is strong in terms of
communication in that it targets communities and places them at the centre stage as the agents
of change in addressing sanitation challenges within their areas. They indicated that this is a
multidimensional approach of the project as it incorporates other approaches such as sanitation
financing, sanitation designs, sludge management and hygiene promotion/ education, and all
these involves a lot of dialogue, which is a major component of communication. It also
incorporates participatory area mapping which also puts communities in the forefront in
64
identification and prioritization of the areas that need intervention and it advocates for high
usage of local items for demonstration so as to make the community relate well with the
situation on the ground.
4.13 Participatory communication and CLTS
The results of the study as shown in the chart below show that a majority (5) of the project team
is not familiar with the participatory communication concept. A similar number (5) also stated
that they are not sure whether the CLTS project applies participatory communication owing to
the fact that they did not know what exactly participatory communication is.
For those who stated that they understand the concept, they said that participatory
communication is the practice that involves people in decision making of the development
processes affecting them and that it is a dialogue process where views are aired out by all until a
consensus is arrived at. It involves a two way communication with forward and feedback loops.
This study found out that whereas there is a general understanding of participatory
communication, the project team members seem not sure of what ought to be the benefits of the
same to the project. However, some say that participatory communication empowers the
community for it provides them with the opportunity to air out their views on various CLTS
activities and hence the result is owned by all of them, hence action from the concerned parties,
especially the landlords who have now started constructing new toilets. This has great effects in
terms of eradication of open defection within the plots.
As noted above, the project team agrees that there is little or to some of them absolutely no
knowledge on participatory communication, and communication in general, and this affects the
delivery of communication outputs of the project. Additionally, they noted that language is a
limitation when it comes to use of technical terms, since most of them are in English, and the
medium of communication with the CLTS project beneficiaries is Kiswahili.
65
In terms of challenges in communication, the following table ( table 4.5) shows the finding,
where many of the issues raised were rated as moderate as seen from the project team’s
perspective.
Figure 4.5 Ratings on communications statements Low Moderate High
Lack of cooperation among residents 1 6 1
Uncooperative local leaders 8
Lack of political will 1 6 1
Poorly informed health workers on CLTS 3 4 1
Poor message comprehension 1 7 0
Source: Researcher
This study also sought to know the level of cooperation that the project team experiences in the
implementation process from some key stakeholders as well as the uptake of the messages being
communicated in the project.
As shown in Figure 4.5 above, cooperation between the project team and the local residents is
moderate as stated by six (6) of the project team members, and it is even higher with the local
leaders at one hundred percent (100%).
The study also found that there is moderate political will in support of the project as indicated
by six (6) of the project team members.
In terms of levels of information and awareness on CLTS, the results show that the project team
members (7) feel that the CLTS messages are moderately comprehended. Further, above
average of the health workers in the area are properly informed on CLTS.
66
As shown above (Figure 4.5), the study results show only a small percentage of extreme lack of
cooperation of poor information and messages comprehension, an indication of the
community’s willingness to adopt CLTS.
4.14 Effectiveness of communication in CLTS
The effectiveness of communication in the project has been rated as high (25%) and moderate
(75%) by the project team members. To achieve this, the project employs the use of
communication and knowledge products which include participatory posters and materials, case
studies, humans interest and most significant change stories, Participatory Health and Sanitation
Transformation (PHAST) tools (sanitation ladder, 3 pile sorting, F-diagram) Stickers/posters
with hygiene messages and training manuals.
4.15 Institutionalization of communication
The CLTS project in Nakuru which is in its last implementation phase according to the project
team has no communication strategy in place, hence the reason communication has not been
institutionalized properly. According to the project team, a communication strategy for the
project would have clearly indicated the objectives to be achieve through communication, kind
of messages to be passed and at what stage in the project period, the communication channels
between the community, project team and other partners and stakeholders, the person in charge,
budgets and time schedules in addition to provision of guidelines for sharing approaches and
lessons learned.
The absence of a communication strategy has led the project facing a number of challenges.
These include poor financing, poor stakeholder coordination, lack of consistence in supporting
project teams in terms of communication by the head office based teams, poor documentation
and publicity as well as limited training on new and upcoming communication approaches like
participatory communication.
67
The study further established that the project has a small allocation for communication.
However this is for IEC materials and project documentation, hence no allocation for
participatory communication.
In terms of staffing, this study found out that the project has no specific communication staff.
However, the project gets support from the communication teams at Umande Trust and
Practical Action head offices as and when needed.
68
CHAPTER FIVE 5.0 Summary of findings, discussion, conclusion and recommendations
5.1 Summary of research findings This study was conducted based on a general objective of investigating how participatory
communication has been conceived and applied in a CLTS project designed to promote
participatory approaches to address WASH challenges in Nakuru’s Kaptembwo and Kwa
Rhonda low income areas. Towards this, a number of issues as summarized below have been
highlighted by the findings, either pointing to the fact that there is some use of participatory
communication in the project, or pointing otherwise.
5.1.1 Communication competence and training
The CLTS project was designed to use information to trigger change and action from the
community on sanitation issues affecting them. This study however found that most of the
project staff implementing this project are not very competent on communication. A major
finding of the study is that none of the project team members is a professional in
communication. It also found out that the project has no fulltime communications person
attached to it, hence relies on communication staff not involved in day to day implementation of
the project. The study further observed that majority of the project team members have
absolutely no knowledge of participatory communication.
From the findings, it is evident the CLTS is bound to be faced with major challenges in the
implementation since the communication outputs may not be realized well by the otherwise
communications incompetent staff. As noted earlier, CLTS is a majorly communication project,
and hence it requires the guidance of an expert in communication on a full time basis.
5.1.2 Institutionalization of communication
69
Though CLTS is largely a communication project, the study found out that communication
aspect in it has not been properly institutionalized. In this respect, the study found out that there
exists no communication strategy for the project, which all the key informants, including the
project team say would be an important tool that would guide the project on communication
matters. Absence of this, as shown by the results has led to poor funding of communication,
with the little available funds being allocated to documentation of lessons learn and project
profiling. This is in line with Okgbo, C. (1996) observation that in many organizations that have
communication departments, there is limited investment in communication, it is not prioritized.
As a result, there is a major concentration on IEC materials against other forms of
communication. Though important, communication aspects in a project receive little support by
the national management levels of a project.
Umande Trust and Practical Action, the lead development agencies in the CLTS project have
project staff, whom although somehow conversant with participatory approaches in
development have no training on participatory communication, and this is a major detriment to
the success of the project, and especially where the plight of people is involved.
5.1.3 Communication tools
This study found that the CLTS project indeed applies participatory approaches in the
implementation process. It also established that there is high usage of participatory
communication tools which include meeting, transect walks and visits, social mobilization
committees, social marketing through campaigns, merchandizing, branding, participatory health
and sanitation transformation (PHAST) tools and slight use of social media. There is also use of
community theatre, edutainment, group work and demonstrative sessions.
70
The radio, which has become very interactive and participatory, is hardly being used in this
project. However, the study found out that there is some usage of traditional non-participatory
tools in communication such as posters, letters and use of local administration and opinion
leaders.
5.1.4 Message development and comprehension
Message comprehension and understanding of terminologies used in CLTS is very critical in the
CLTS project. This study established that there is a high understanding of the general terms
used in the CLTS and WASH in general. However, terms like participatory design sessions,
three pile sorting and sanitation ladder which are key in CLTS and promotes participation and
inclusion in decision making processes recorded low understanding levels. The findings of this
study also shows that against the expectation of the project objectives, messages created do not
cause fear, shame and disgust as expected. The study results show that sixty five percent (65%)
disagreed that that the messages cause fear, shame and disgust, although they admitted that they
are involved in their development.
It is important to note that for maximum results to be achieved by the CLTS project, there is
need for the attainment common understanding of the concepts used so as to trigger desired
action. Lack of this may bring forth confusion brought about by lack of clarity hence different
perceptions leading to difficulty in yielding to action.
5.1.5 Stakeholders’ participation
The success of any development project is greatly affected by the role various stakeholders play,
and hence their involvement is vital. This study observed that various stakeholders provide
supportive role in the implementation of this project as indicated below. All the study
respondents indicated that at one time or the other, they have interacted with various
stakeholders. Key stakeholders in this project include the County Government of Nakuru,
71
Ministry of Health, the Local Administration, religious leaders, CLTS trainers, Krep Bank and
other NGOs implementation various projects in the area. Others include landlords, community
health workers (CHWs) and tenants living in the two settlements. It was observed that these
stakeholders play a number of roles which include mobilization, regulation and enforcement,
resources leveraging of resources, monitoring, evaluation and learning, and sharing of
knowledge. The study also found out that the CLTS project is represented in the Nakuru East
District Behaviour Change Communication group, where dialogue on issues facing the project,
progress, successes and challenges are discussed with an aim of identification of areas where the
group can intervene. It was however observed that some of the stakeholders are only invited
when there is need, and hence their contributions to the projects are limited.
5.2 Discussion of the research findings
This study sought to establish the role of participatory communication in WASH. This was done
by looking into various aspects of the project in terms of its design, implementation process,
stakeholder’s involvement, project staff competencies and institutional capacities on
communication. It also delved into message development, message comprehension and tools
used as means of communication in the project.
Based on the objectives of the study, and looking into the aspects named above, and indeed the
project’s null hypotheses, this study established that to some extent, the CLTS applies
participatory communication in the implementation process. This is partly as a result of the
participatory approach it undertakes, and this was cited by the beneficiary community, project
staff and interviewed the key informants. However, the study found out that the concept is not
very clear amongst the project team who are meant to facilitate discussions and dialogue in the
implementation process.
Additionally, the study also found that there is considerable involvement of the community in
72
project in a participatory way with results showing that the a big percent of the beneficiary
community members get opportunities to participate in the project cycle, with active
participation in project meetings recording a high percentage.
However, the findings also expose a big gap in the application of participatory communication
in an otherwise participatory project based on staff competencies. From the analysis of the
professional background of the project team, it is evident that most of them are community
development professionals who are experts in their own fields, with none portraying some bias
towards communication. This is further complicated by their respective institutions failure to
properly mainstream communication in the project.
Based on the participatory communication theory, it is expected that to a large extent
participatory communication would be applied as a facilitating tool in bringing about change
processes. UNICEF, (1999) postulates that adopting participatory communication promotes
social, political, and institutional changes at different levels by building trust between
governments and citizens, promoting a two-way communication, and exchanging knowledge
and skills. It becomes a vital tool throughout the entire cycle of a WASH project, or any other
development project. However, the study observed that there are efforts towards this in the
CLTS project, though sub-consciously, not deliberate. This has greatly affected the success rate
of the CLTS project, though designed differently from other ordinary WASH projects.
5.3 Conclusion.
From the findings of this study, it is evident that participatory communication indeed has a
major role to play not only in WASH but in all other development projects, especially those that
involve solving perennial problems facing specific communities in both urban and rural areas in
Kenya and beyond. The 2013 Human Development Report, (UNDP 2013) states that unless
people participate meaningfully in the events and processes that shape their lives, national
73
human development paths will be neither desirable nor sustainable. Additionally, Mefalopulos
(2004) depicts participatory communication as a process whose aim is to facilitate people’s
participation at all levels of the development. From the research findings, these have started to
take root in the CLTS project though attainment of maximum results is yet to be seen since the
project is not complete. However, with only less than six month to the end of the project, it may
be difficult to continue monitoring the sustainability of the project activities since there would
be limited support, if any from the project team.
5.4 Recommendations.
From the study findings, the researcher proposes the following to the institutions implementing
CLTS.
In terms of competencies in communication, there is need for the organizations implementing
this project to invest more on communication amongst the project staff. This would be
approached from an institutional perspective where there would be need to have in place that
would be the guiding tool to not only the CLTS project, but other people based projects. As
such, the strategy would encompass funding, staffing and a policy direction on inclusion of
communication in all projects being undertaken. Specifically, there was need for a
communication strategy for this specific project, owing to its participatory approach, and the
fact that there is little subsidy of material benefits emanating directly from the project to the
community.
Secondly, the project needs to enhance stakeholder participation for its sustainability. As noted
above, the project is hardly six months to completion, and at this stage it has started yielding the
expected results. With the project financing over, the role to continue with the mobilization and
monitoring of the project would be taken over by the stakeholders, hence move this project from
74
a demonstration status to scaling up. This would also leverage more resources from the
stakeholders, and hence play in hard in the achievement of an ODF Kaptembwo and Kwa
Rhonda low income areas, and beyond.
Lastly, there is need to address communication challenges facing WASH projects in general in
an attempt to establish the benefits that can be accrued from proper use of participatory
communication viz a viz the top-down approach that is predominantly in use. This would be
achieved by training the project staff on participatory approaches, including participatory
communication so as to address the disconnect being experienced between the project
beneficiaries and project team in terms of the how, when and where participation of the
community has taken place. It would also enhance effectiveness of the projects being put in
place and give value to the resources that are being directed to the WASH sector by
development agencies and the government.
Further, this study proposes that there is need for the government and policy makers to
institutionalize participatory communication in the department that deal directly with the public,
and for this case the Public Health Department so as to realize desired results, owned by the
beneficiary community. The study has shown that there is no preparedness amongst the public
health officials in Nakuru to participate in the implementation of this project, and most of them
are involved since they are in charge of the specific areas where the project is implemented. As
a result, their input would be greatly enhanced to implement a project similar to CLTS, in
addition to enhancing their capacity as agents of the government, the duty bearer in terms of
provision of basic rights, including access to reasonable sanitation (The Constitution of Kenya
2010). This would also enable them to carry on with the project’s activities and follow up upon
the exit of the NGO’s implementing the CLTS project for the Nakuru case.
Lastly, in line with the study limitations noted in chapter one, there is need to do further
75
research where CLTS would be looked into on a wider scale involving both rural and urban
setting. This study only focuses on one project, the CLTS Project in Kwa Rhonda and
Kaptembwo in Nakuru, limiting itself in terms of scope and area (focusing only on an urban
area). There is therefore need for further study looking into similarities and differences in
participatory communication approaches applied in both settings targeting both on-going and
completed projects.
76
REFERENCES
Ansah, P.A.V. (1996). The Right to Communication Implications for Development. In
Okgibo, C. Development Communication Principles. ACCE: Nairobi
Ansu-Kyeremeh. (1997). Communication, education and development: exploring an African
cultural setting. Ghana Universities Press: Accra
Anyaegbunam, C., Mefalopulos, P. and Moetsabi, T. (2004). Participatory Rural
Communication Appraisal: Starting with the People. FAO: Rome.
Bessette, G. (2004). Involving the Community; A Guide to Participatory Development
Communication. International Development Research Centre: Ottawa (available at
http://www.idrc.ca)
Bessette, G. and Rajasunderam, C.V. (1996).Participatory Communication for
Development: A West African Agenda. IDRC and Penang: Ottawa
Bessette, G. (1995). Development Communication: A Conceptual Framework. In Okigbo, C.
Media and Sustainable Development. ACCE: Nairobi
Bordenave, J. E. D. (1977) Communication and Rural Development. BernanAssoc: Texas
Chaman, K. and Mefalopulos, P. (2008). Communication, water, and sanitation in Latin
America: The Contribution of Communication for Development in Water Resource
Management and Service Implementation Projects. Water and Sanitation Programme,
World Bank: Lima
CLTS Coordinating Unit, Kenya (2011). Shit News. CLTS Kenya, Nairobi (available at
www.cltskenya.org
Coldevin, G. (2001). Participatory Communication. Communication for Development
Group, FAO: Rome
Colle, R.D. (1995). Assessing Communication Needs for development in Africa. In
Charles Okigbo Media and Sustainable Development. ACCE: Nairobi
77
Corbetta, P. (2003). Social Research. Sage Publications: London
GoK, (2010).2009 National Population Census. Central Bureau of Statistics: Nairobi.
Figueroa, M.E. et al. (2002).Communication for Social Change: An Integrated Model for
Measuring the Process and its Outcomes. The Rockefeller Foundation: New York
Gorre-Dale, E et al (1994). Communication in Water Supply and Sanitation Resource
Booklet. International Water and Sanitation Centre: Geneva (available at
http://irc-nt3/irc/themes/communication/resbook)
Greaves, T.J.B. A. Critique of Forms of Participatory Development and Communication:
PHASE (Project for Health and Sanitation Education) - a case study.
Hancock, A. (1981). Communication Planning for Development: An Operational Framework.
UNESCO: Paris
Kalugendo, J. and MacLeod, P. (2013). Creating Participatory Model of Engagement of Local
Communities to Enhance Development Effectiveness in Tanzania. In African Journal of
Communication Vol 1. The East African Communication Association: Nairobi
Kar, K and Bongartz, P. (2006). Update on Some Recent Developments in Community-Led
Total Sanitation. Institute of Development Studies: Brighton
Kar, K. and Chambers. R., (2008). Handbook on Community Led Total Sanitation. Institute of
Development Studies: Brighton
Kar, K. (2010). Facilitating “Hands-On” Training Workshops for Community-Led Total
Sanitation. Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council: Geneva (available at
www.wsscc.org).
Kar, K. (2010). Water Supply and Sanitation. Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative
Council: Geneva
Lagae, B. (2012). Community-Based Participatory Action Research: An Emerging
Alternative. MA Thesis, University of Miami. (Available at
78
http://scholarlyrepository.miami.edu)
Lasswell, H, (1948). The Structure and Function of Communication in Society. In
Mefalopulos, P., Anyaegbunam, C. and Moetsabi, T. (2004). Communication Appraisal:
Starting with the People. A Handbook. Second Edition for the SADC Centre of
Communication for Development: Rome
Mefalopulos, P. (2003) Theory and Practice of Participatory Communication: The Case of the
FAO Project “Communication for Development in Southern Africa” PhD Dissertation,
The University of Texas at Austin
Melkote, S.R. (1991). Communication for Development in the Third World. Sage
Publications: New Delhi
Mcquail D. (1983). Mass Communication Theory; An Introduction. Sage: Britain.
McQuail, D. (2005). Mass Communication Theory. Fifth Edition Sage: London.
Moemeka, A.A. (1996) Perspective on Development Communication. In Charles Okigbo, C.
Development Communication Principles. ACCE: Nairobi
Mongula, B. (2008). Does National Development Policy Encourage Participatory
Communication? The Case of Tanzania. I.D.S, University of Dar es Salaam. In
African Communication Research, Vol 1. St Augustine University of Tanzania: Mwanza
Mowlana, H. (1995). Communication and Development: Everyone’s Problem. In Okigbo, C
Media and Sustainable Development, ACCE: Nairobi
Mugenda, G. A. (2008). Social Research Science. Applied research and Training Services:
Nairobi
Mugenda, O.M (2003) Research Methods: Acts Press, Nairobi.
Muturi, N. and Mwangi, S. (2009). The Theory and Practice Gap in Participatory
Communication; A Caribbean Case study. The Journal of International Communication
79
Ngugi, M. (1996). Development Communication: A Clarification of Constructs.
In Okigbo, C. Development Communication Principles ACCE: Nairobi
Nwanko. R. N (1995). Sustainability as an African Communication Concept: Some Theory
and Practice Issues. In Okigbo, C. Media and Sustainable Development. ACCE: Nairobi
Nyamnjoh, F.B. (1995). Communication Research and Sustainable Development in Africa:
The Need for a Cultural Perspective. In Okigbo, C. Media and Sustainable Development.
ACCE: Nairobi
Okigbo, C. (1996). Development Communication Principles ACCE: Nairobi
Okgibo, C. (1996). Is Development Communication Dead? In Okgibo, C. Development
Communication Principles. ACCE: Nairobi
Okigbo, C (1995). Media and Sustainable Development. ACCE: Nairobi
Quarry, W. and Ramure R. (2010). Communication for another development; Listening before
Talking
Practical Action and Umande Trust, (2012). Realizing the Right to Total Sanitation in
Nakuru’s Low Income Settlement; Baseline Report, Nairobi (Un-published)
Sanan, D. and Moulik, S.G. (2007). Community-Led Total Sanitation in Rural Areas, An
Approach that Works; Water and Sanitation Program- South Asia, The World Bank:
New Delhi
Servaes, J. (1995). Communication for Development in a Global Perspective: In Okigbo, C.
Media and Sustainable Development. ACCE: Nairobi
Servaes, J. (1996). Communication for Development in a Global Perspective: The Role of
Governmental and Non-Governmental Agencies. Communications No. 21.
Servaes, J. and Malikhao, P. (2005). Participatory Communication the New Paradigm? In
Media and Global Change: Rethinking Communication for Development
Latin American Council of Social Sciences (CLACSO) Buenos Aires
80
Soy, Susan K. (1997). The case study as a research method. Unpublished paper,
University of Texas at Austin. (Available at www.ischool.utexas.edu)
Severin, J W. and Tankard, J.W (2001). Communications Theories: Origins, Methods, and Uses
in the Mass Media. Addison Wesly Longman Inc: New York
Tan S.A. (1981). Mass Communication Theories and Research (2nd Ed.) John Wileys and
Sons: New York
The Constitution of Kenya (2010). National Council for Law Reporting: Nairobi
Tufte T and Mefalopulos P. (2009), Participatory Communication. A Practical Guide:
The World Bank: Washington DC
UNICEF, (2009).Community Approaches to Total Sanitation. Policy, Advocacy and
Knowledge Management, Division of Policy and Practice (UNICEF): New York
UNICEF, (2011). Water, Sanitation and Hygiene. Annual Report 2010. UNICEF WASH
Section Programmes: New York
UNICEF, (2013). Community-Led Total Sanitation in East Asia and Pacific: Progress,
Lessons and Directions. UNICEF East Asia and Pacific Regional Office: Bangkok
UNICEF, (1999). Towards Better Programming; A Manual on Communication for Water
Supply and Environmental Sanitation Programmes, Water, Environment and Sanitation
Technical Guidelines No. 7. (UNICEF): New York
UNDP (2013). Human Development Report. The Rise of the South: Human Progress in a
Diverse World. UNDP: New York
Waisbord, S (2008). The Institutional Challenges of Participatory Communication in
International Aid. Taylor and Francis: Washington (available at
http://www.informaworld.com)
White, Robert A. (2008). Ten Major lines of research on grassroots participatory
Communication in Africa. African Communication Research. Vol 1. St Augustine
81
University of Tanzania: Mwanza
White, S.A. (2003). Participatory Video: Images that Transform and Empower. Sage
Publications: New Delhi
WASREB, (2011). IMPACT, Performance Report of Kenya’s Water Services Sector. Issue
No 4. Water Services Regulatory Board: Nairobi.
WHO / UNICEF (2010). Joint Monitoring Programed for Water Supply and
Sanitation. Estimates for the use of Improved Sanitation Facilities, Kenya
(Available at wssinfo.org)
Yoon, S.C. (1996). Participatory Communication for Development, In Participatory
Communication for Development: A West African Agenda. International Development
Research Centre (IDRC) and Penang: Southbound: Ottawa
82
APPENDICES Appendix I: Project Team Questionnaire
The questionnaire is designed for academic research purposes only. Kindly answer all
questions. Your responses will be treated with utmost confidence.
Respondent (optional) _____________________________________ Date______________
Organization____________________________
General Questions
1. What is your position in this organization?______________________________________
2. For how long have you been working with the organization? a. 1-2 Years [ ] b. 3-4 years [ ] c. Over 5 years [ ]
3. When were you engaged in the CLTS initiative?
a. 1-2 Years [ ] b. 3-4 years [ ] c. Over 5 years [ ]
4. What is your professional background? ________________________________________
Communication competence and training
5. Have you ever attended any session on communication? Yes [ ] b. No [ ] (Please
explain)__________________________________________________________________
6. How would you define or conceive communication as currently used in CLTS?-
________________________________________________________________________
7. What do you consider to be the main advantages/strengths of using communication (as described above)? And its limitations/weaknesses?
a. _____________________________________________________________________
83
8. What means of communication are applied by the CLTS project in Nakuru? (tick as many as appropriate)
Means of communication by Project Staff to community and stakeholders
Means of communication by community to Project Staff
Project Meetings
Public Barazas
Radio
Community Mobilizers
Posters
Telephone calls
Local Administration
Opinion Leaders
Letters
Focus Group
Discussions
Social media
Any other
84
The role of Participation
9. How would you define or conceive participation as currently used in CLTS?
________________________________________________________________________
10. What do you consider to be the main advantages/strengths of using some form of
participation? And its limitations/weaknesses?
________________________________________________________________________
11. Has the beneficiary community been involved in any of the phases of the project cycle of
the CLTS project in Nakuru? If so which one? I.e.
a. Identification of area/ sector of intervention; Yes [ ] b. No [ ]
b. Research/Needs Assessment; Yes [ ] b. No [ ]
c. Project formulation Yes [ ] b. No [ ]
d. Planning (strategy design and work plan); Yes [ ] b. No [ ]
e. Implementation; Yes [ ] b. No [ ]
f. Evaluation. Yes [ ] b. No [ ]
Participatory Communication
12. Are you familiar with the concept of participatory communication)?
Yes [ ] b. No [ ] (Please explain)
_______________________________________________________
13. Do you think the CLTS project applies participatory communication in the implementation
process?
a. Yes [ ] b. No [ ]
85
Community Led Total Sanitation
14. What background information on the project area did you have before the commencement of
the project?
________________________________________________________________________
Participatory communication and CLTS
15. What participatory communication tools do you use to disseminate information on CLTS to
the members of the community?
______________________________________________________________________
16. Do you think participation and dialogue has a role to play in CLTS?
Yes [ ] b. No [ ] (Please Explain)
________________________________________________________________________
17. What method do you use to get community members views and ideas on the various
processes of the initiative?
_____________________________________________________________________
18. What do you consider to be the major points of strength of this project especially in relation
with its communication approaches?
_____________________________________________________________________ 19. Outlined are some of the challenges that may be encountered when communicating with the
community on CLTS: Rate as; a. High b. Moderate c. Low
a. Lack of cooperation among residents? a. [ ] b. [ ] c. [ ]
b. Uncooperative local leaders; a. [ ] b. [ ] c. [ ]
c. Lack of political will; a. [ ] b. [ ] c. [ ]
d. Poorly informed health workers on CLTS; a. [ ] b. [ ] c. [ ]
e. Poor message comprehension; a. [ ] b. [ ] c. [ ]
20. And what are the main weaknesses/limitations of participatory communication in CLTS?
86
_____________________________________________________________________
21. How do you rate the effectiveness of the communication approaches used in CLTS?
a. High b. Moderate c. Low
22. Do you have in place any communication and knowledge products in place? a. Yes [ ]
b. No. [ ] (If yes, give examples)
_____________________________________________________________________
Funding
23. Does the project have an allocation for (participatory) communication? a. Yes [ ] b. No. [ ] (Please explain) ___________________________________
24. Does the project have designated communication staff? a. Yes [ ] b. No. [ ]
25. What is the role of the communication staff in the project?
26. Is there a communication strategy for CLTS in place? a. Yes [ ] b. No. [ ]
27. If not, what do you think would be the role of a communication strategy in
CLTS?__________________________________________________________________
28. What is the current status of the CLTS project? a. Beginning b. Mid-term d. completed. e. Evaluation stage
Sustainability / Up-scaling
29. What do you feel about the take and success rate following outputs as envisaged in the
project; ( Rate as; i. Low ii. Moderate iii. High)
Toilet construction: i. [ ] ii. [ ] iii. [ ]
Hand washing practices i. [ ] ii. [ ] iii. [ ]
Credit up-take i. [ ] ii. [ ] iii. [ ]
87
30. What communication challenges exist in the CLTS project?
________________________________________________________________________
31. Are you aware of the reasons why the organizations decided to implement such an
innovative project?
88
Appendix II: Key informants: Project Beneficiaries Questionnaire
The questionnaire is designed for academic research purposes only. Kindly answer all
questions. Your responses will be treated with utmost confidence.
Interviewer __________________________________________________________
Date _______________________________________________________________
Background:
Respondents Name (optional).-______________________________________________________________
Gender: Male [ ] /Female [ ] Marital Status : Married [ ] Single [ ]
1. Age Group : a. 18-25 [ ] b. 26-35 [ ] c. 36-45 [ ] d. 46-55 [ ] e. 55 and over [ ]
2. Education Level
No Education [ ] KCPE and Belo w [ ] KCSE and Below [ ] A Level [ ] University [ ] Other (please specify)________________________________________________________
3. Number of occupants per household a. 1-3 [ ] b. 4-6 [ ] c. 7 and over [ ]
4. House hold composition
a. Adult Male [ ] b. adult female [ ] c. children [ ] d. people living with disabilities [ ]
Economic Status 5. Source of income
a. Employed [ ] b. Self-employed [ ] c. Unemployed [ ] d. Retired [ ] e. Casual e. Labourer [ ] f. Others (Specify) _____________________________________
6. Type of employment / occupation / Business ( Specify) _____________________________
Income mode a. Daily [ ] b. Weekly [ ] c. (Monthly [ ]
89
7. Income ( Monthly) a. 0-2,000 [ ] b. 3,000 – 5,000 [ ] c. 6,000-9,000 [ ] d. 10,000-15,000 [ ]
e. 16,000-20,000 [ ] f. Over 20,000 [ ]
Residence 8. Are you a native of Kaptembwo / Rhonda? Yes [ ] b. No [ ]
9. If No above, when did you settle in Rhonda / Kaptembwo?
a. 2 years ago [ ] b. 3-5 years ago [ ] c. 6-9 years ago [ ] d. Over 10 years ago [ ]
10. When did you move into your current house / plot?
a. 2 years ago [ ] b. 3-5 years ago [ ] c. 6-9 years ago [ ] d. Over 10 years ago [ ]
11. What is the sanitation condition in your house / plot?
Rate as; i) good, ii) fair, iii) bad)
Toilet: [ i ] [ ii ] [ iii ] Bathroom: [ i ] [ ii ] [ iii ] Hand washing facility [ i ] [ ii ] [ iii ]
CLTS and Community Action
12. Do you know of the Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS)? Yes [ ] b. No [ ] Other (Specify) ________________________________________
13. When did you learn of the CLTS initiative? ______________________________________
14. Have you ever attended any CLTS meeting? a. Yes [ ] b. No [ ]
If yes, who conducted the meeting? ____________________________________________
15. What was your role in the meeting? ____________________________________________
16. Who informed you about it? __________________________________________________
17. What message was communicated in the meeting?
90
Message comprehension
18. In your own opinion, do you think you have appropriate information on the following CLTS terms?
Yes No Somehow (explain)
Hand washing with soap
Critical hand washing times
Participatory Toilets design session
Community Mobilizers
The feacal oral transmission route
The sanitation ladder
Open defecation
Open defecation free area
Community Health workers
Diarrhoea diseases
Transmission barriers
Three pile sorting
19. Have you played any role in the CLTS initiative in your community? a. Yes [ ] b. No [ ] Please explain role
played________________________________________________________________
Participation
20. Have you been involved in any of the phases of the project cycle of the CLTS project in
Nakuru? If so which one and in what capacity? I.e.
g. Identification of area/ sector of intervention; Yes [ ] b. No [ ]
h. Research/Needs Assessment; Yes [ ] b. No [ ]
i. Project formulation Yes [ ] b. No [ ]
j. Planning (strategy design and work plan by the project); Yes [ ] b. No [ ]
k. Implementation; Yes [ ] b. No [ ]
l. Evaluation. Yes [ ] b. No [ ]
21. Who selected the area for the CLTS initiative? ___________________________________
91
22. How was the area identified? _________________________________________________
23. Has you plot/house been targeted for any CLTS activity? Yes [ ]
b. No [ ] ( If Yes,
Please explain) _______________________________________________________________________
Communication approaches
24. Do you think the CLTS initiative activities have been communicated well? a. Yes [ ] b. No [ ]
Participatory Communication
25. Which of these is used to pass messages in the CLTS project in Nakuru? (tick as many as
appropriate)
TOOL TICK
Project Meetings
Public Barazas
Radio
Community Mobilizers
Posters
Telephone calls
Local Administration
SMS
Opinion Leaders
Letters
Focus Group Discussions
Songs
Visits
92
Newspaper
Social media
Any other
26. To What extent do you agree with the following statements:
Key: 5 strongly agrees, 4 agree, 3 undecided, 2 disagree, 1 strongly disagree
(Please put an X as appropriate)
1 2 3 4 5 I always get a chance to ask and respond to questions when I attend a CLTS session
Debates in a CLTS session are informative and enlightening
The project team communicates clearly on issues to do with CLTS
The project team distribute materials that that I consider important in sanitation
The community feels respected by the project team Clear and honest communication helps to encourage and strengthen relationship with the community for maximum results
The community members are allowed in in many ways to offer their ideas and opinions and are part of the decision making process
Communication between the project staff and the community members is critical in identification of challenges and solutions that lead to project ownership by the concerned community
The messages used in CLTS training sessions create fear and disgust
The messages are appealing to me and likely to make me change behavior and attitude
I participated in the development of messages used in outreach sessions within the plots.
93
Community Action 27. From the experiences in CLTS, I have been able to do the following :
a. Build a new toilet Yes [ ] b. No [ ]
b. Install a new hand washing facility Yes [ ] b. No [ ]
c. Take up a sanitation loan Yes [ ] b. No [ ]
28. Do you think that CLTS is achieving its objectives?
d. Yes [ ] b. No [ ] (Please explain)
________________________________________________________________________
94
Appendix III: Key Informant: Interview Schedule
Interviewer__________________________________________________________________
Interviewee______________________________ Designation _________________________
Date of Interview________________________________
1. Are you an expert in CLTS? (Please explain)
2. Have you ever attended sessions organized by Umande Trust and Practical action on CLTS?
3. CLTS uses a no-subsidy approach in implementation of sanitation projects, hence relying on
provision of information that would trigger action. In this context, do you think CLTS in
Nakuru is achieving its objectives?
4. What do you think is the role of communication in the CLTS approach in Nakuru?
5. Do you think communication in CLTS Nakuru is participatory?
6. Do you think that the community is given enough space to participate in decision making in
the CLTS approach (especially in this project)?
7. What other opinion do you have as it relates to the role of community in communicating
their development needs in WASH?
8. Based on your knowledge/experiences, do you think that this project is sustainable or one
time demo?
9. Would you consider it useful to establish similar CLTS projects promoting the adoption of
participatory communication approaches? Why?
10. Have you noticed any change in the conception and/or adoption of this approach in the
different phases, especially as conceived by stakeholders?
11. Are you aware of the reasons why the organizations decided to implement such an
innovative project?
